Explore the vast range of titles available.

With the recent regulatory approval of Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) for the treatment of advanced of melanoma in the United States, Europe and Australia, oncolytic virus immunotherapy has earned its place in the clinic. However, the adoption of T-VEC by the U.S. oncology community has been slow, and so far has been largely limited to specialized cancer centers. Limiting factors include the intratumoral route of administration, which is unfamiliar to medical oncologists, biosafety concerns related to the use of a live virus in the clinic, and the explosion of other therapeutic strategies now available for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Herein, we review the development of T-VEC, and suggest how it fits into the in the current clinical treatment paradigm, and provide pearls for drug preparation, administration, and monitoring of response to therapy.

Cancer immunotherapy has flourished over the last 10–15 years, transforming the practice of oncology and providing long-term clinical benefit to some patients. During this time, three distinct classes of immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor-T cell therapies specific for two targets, and two distinct classes of bispecific T cell engagers, a vaccine, and an oncolytic virus have joined cytokines as a standard of cancer care. At the same time, scientific progress has delivered vast amounts of new knowledge. For example, advances in technologies such as single-cell sequencing and spatial transcriptomics have provided deep insights into the immunobiology of the tumor microenvironment. With this rapid clinical and scientific progress, the field of cancer immunotherapy is currently at a critical inflection point, with potential for exponential growth over the next decade. Recognizing this, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a diverse group of experts in cancer immunotherapy representing academia, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, patient advocacy, and the regulatory community to identify current opportunities and challenges with the goal of prioritizing areas with the highest potential for clinical impact. The consensus group identified seven high-priority areas of current opportunity for the field: mechanisms of antitumor activity and toxicity; mechanisms of drug resistance; biomarkers and biospecimens; unique aspects of novel therapeutics; host and environmental interactions; premalignant immunity, immune interception, and immunoprevention; and clinical trial design, endpoints, and conduct. Additionally, potential roadblocks to progress were discussed, and several topics were identified as cross-cutting tools for optimization, each with potential to impact multiple scientific priority areas. These cross-cutting tools include preclinical models, data curation and sharing, biopsies and biospecimens, diversification of funding sources, definitions and standards, and patient engagement. Finally, three key guiding principles were identified that will both optimize and maximize progress in the field. These include engaging the patient community; cultivating diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and leveraging the power of artificial intelligence to accelerate progress. Here, we present the outcomes of these discussions as a strategic vision to galvanize the field for the next decade of exponential progress in cancer immunotherapy.

Ipilimumab, an antibody that enhances T‐cell activation, may augment immunogenicity of tumor cells that are injured by radiation therapy. We hypothesized that patients with melanoma brain metastasis treated with both ipilimumab and radiotherapy would have improved overall survival, and that the sequence of treatments may affect disease control in the brain. We analyzed the clinical and radiographic records of melanoma patients with brain metastases who were treated with whole brain radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery between 2005 and 2012. The hazard ratios for survival were estimated to assess outcomes as a function of ipilimumab use and radiation type. Seventy patients were identified, 33 of whom received ipilimumab and 37 who did not. The patients who received ipilimumab had a censored median survival of 18.3 months (95% confidence interval 8.1–25.5), compared with 5.3 months (95% confidence interval 4.0–7.6) for patients who did not receive ipilimumab. Ipilimumab and stereotactic radiosurgery were each significant predictors of improved overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.43 and 0.45, with P = 0.005 and 0.008, respectively). Four of 10 evaluable patients (40.0%) who received ipilimumab prior to radiotherapy demonstrated a partial response to radiotherapy, compared with two of 22 evaluable patients (9.1%) who did not receive ipilimumab. Ipilimumab is associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in patients with melanoma brain metastases who underwent radiotherapy, and this finding supports the need for multimodality therapy to optimize patient outcomes. Prospective studies are needed and are underway. Treatment with ipilimumab significantly reduced the risk of death by 57% in patients with brain metastases due to melanoma who underwent whole brain radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Patients who were treated with SRS and ipilimumab had a 16‐month improvement in survival as compared to those who received SRS alone.

Background Metastatic melanoma (mM) and renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are often treated with anti-PD-1 based therapy, however not all patients respond and further therapies are needed. High dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) can lead to durable responses in a subset of mM and mRCC patients. The efficacy and toxicity of HD IL-2 therapy following anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy have not yet been explored. Methods Reports on mM and mRCC patients who had received HD IL-2 after PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition were queried from the PROCLAIM SM database. Patient characteristics, toxicity and efficacy were analyzed. Results A total of 57 patients (40 mM, 17 mRCC) were treated with high dose IL-2 after PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition and had data recorded in the PROCLAIM database. The best overall response rate to HD IL-2 was 22.5% for mM (4 complete response (CR), 5 partial responses (PRs)) and 24% for mRCC (2 CRs, 2 PRs). The toxicity related to HD IL-2 observed in these patients was similar to that observed in patients treated with HD IL-2 without prior checkpoint blockade. One patient who had received prior PD-L1 blockade developed drug induced pneumonitis with HD IL-2 requiring steroid therapy. Conclusion In this retrospective analysis, HD IL-2 therapy displayed durable antitumor activity in mM and mRCC patients who progressed following treatment with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition. The toxicities were generally manageable and consistent with expectations from HD IL-2 but physicians should watch for immune related toxicities such as pneumonitis. This analysis supports the development of randomized prospective trials to assess the proper sequencing and combination of immune checkpoint blockade and cytokine therapy.

Background Glutamate signaling activates MAPK and PI3K/AKT pathways in tumor cells. Treatment with riluzole, a glutamate release inhibitor, has been previously shown to be safe in melanoma patients and produced biologic effects, but did not lead to radiographic responses, possibly due to poor pharmacokinetic properties. Therefore, we conducted a phase Ib trial to determine the safety and tolerability of the combination of the riluzole prodrug troriluzole (BHV-4157, trigriluzole) and the PD-1 antibody nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Patients with advanced or refractory solid tumors and measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 were treated with increasing doses of troriluzole using a semi-Bayesian modified toxicity probability interval dose escalation procedure. Troriluzole monotherapy was orally self-administered for a 14-day lead-in period followed by continuation of troriluzole in combination with nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks. Endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy. Results We enrolled 14 patients with advanced solid tumors (melanoma = 3, NSCLC = 3, renal cell carcinoma = 2, bladder/urothelial = 2, ovarian cancer = 1, adenoid cystic carcinoma = 1, pleural mesothelial = 1, head and neck cancer = 1). Eleven patients had cancer progression on prior therapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 agent. Patients received troriluzole total daily doses from 140 to 560 mg (divided). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) occurring in ≥ 5 patients (> 35%) were transaminitis and increased lipase. DLT (dose-limiting toxicity) occurred in 3 patients: (1) grade 3 anorexia, (2) grade 3 fatigue and, (3) grade 3 atrial fibrillation. Six patients were treated at the MTD (maximum tolerated dose). No subjects discontinued treatment due to AEs. One response occurred (7%), which was a partial response in a subject who had PD-1 refractory disease. The 6-month PFS rate was 21%. PK data showed that the prodrug troriluzole was efficiently cleaved into riluzole by 2-h post-dosing in all dose cohorts tested. Conclusion The combination of troriluzole and nivolumab was safe and well-tolerated. The MTD of troriluzole was determined to be 420 mg total daily dose. The observed antitumor activity, primarily disease stabilization, is of interest in patients with PD-1 resistant tumors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03229278.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical evidence suggests that overexpression of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX2) in tumors facilitates immune evasion through prostaglandin E2 production and that COX inhibition synergizes with ICIs to promote antitumor T-cell activation. This study investigates whether concurrent COX inhibitor (COXi) use during ICI treatment compared with ICI alone is associated with improved time-to-progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 90 metastatic melanoma and 37 metastatic NSCLC patients, treated with ICI between 2011 and 2019. Differences in TTP and OS by ICI+COXi versus ICI alone were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. Interaction between ICI+COXi versus ICI alone and pretreatment neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was examined. Independent radiology review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was performed.ResultsFor patients with melanoma, median TTP was significantly prolonged in ICI+COXi versus ICI alone (245 vs 100.5 days, p=0.002). On multivariate analysis, ICI+COXi associated with increased TTP (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.66, p=0.001), adjusted for age, pretreatment NLR, and gender. For NSCLC patients, ICI+COXi also associated with increased TTP compared with ICI alone on multivariate analysis (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97; p=0.042) adjusted for age. ORR at 6 months was significantly higher in patients who received ICI+COXi compared with ICI alone in both melanoma (58.6% vs 19.2%, p=0.0005) and NSCLC (73.7% vs 33.3%, p=0.036) cohorts. In the melanoma cohort, high pretreatment NLR (>5) associated with decreased TTP (HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.64 to 6.3; p=0.0007); however, ICI+COXi significantly associated with increased TTP in high NLR (>5) patients (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25), but not in low NLR (≤5) patients (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.32). Similar outcomes were found in an adjusted melanoma cohort after RECIST review.ConclusionsOur study suggests that COXi use concurrently with ICI significantly associated with longer TTP and improved ORR at 6 months in patients with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC compared with ICI alone. Furthermore, COXi use appears to reverse the negative prognostic effect of a high NLR by prolonging TTP in patients with melanoma.

Clinical trials of cancer immunotherapy (IO) were historically based on a drug development paradigm built for chemotherapies. The remarkable clinical activity of programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 blockade, chimeric antigen receptor-T cells, and T cell engagers yielded new insights into how the mechanistic underpinnings of IO are reflected in the clinic. These insights and the sheer number of novel immunotherapies currently in the pipeline have made it clear that our strategies and tools for IO drug development must adapt. Recent innovations like engineered T cells and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes demonstrate that immune-based treatments may rely on real-time manufacturing programs rather than off-the-shelf drugs. We now recognize adoptively transferred cells as living drugs. Progression criteria have been redefined due to the unique response patterns of IO. Harnessing the power of both biomarkers and the neoadjuvant setting earlier in drug development is of broad interest. The US Food and Drug Association is increasingly impacting the design of trials with respect to dose optimization and clinical endpoints. The use of novel endpoints such as pathologic complete/major response, treatment-free survival, and minimal residual disease is becoming more common. There is growing acceptance of using patient-reported outcomes as trial endpoints to better measure the true clinical benefit and impact of novel IO agents on quality of life. New opportunities created by modern data science and artificial intelligence to inform and accelerate drug development continue to emerge. The importance of streamlining the clinical research ecosystem and enhancing clinical trial access to facilitate the enrollment of diverse patient populations is broadly recognized. Patient advocacy is critical both to drive the science of IO, and to promote patient satisfaction. To capitalize on these opportunities, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has established a goal of at least 100 new, unique IO approvals over the next 10 years. Accordingly, SITC has developed initiatives designed to integrate the viewpoints of diverse stakeholders and galvanize the field in further adapting clinical trials to the unique features of IO, moving us closer to our ultimate goal of using IO to cure and prevent cancer.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare but clinically aggressive cancer with a high mortality rate. In recent years, antibodies blocking the interactions among PD-1 and its ligands have generated durable tumor regressions in patients with advanced MCC. However, there is a paucity of data regarding effective therapy for patients whose disease is refractory to PD-1 pathway blockade. This retrospective case series describes a heterogeneous group of patients treated with additional immune checkpoint blocking therapy after MCC progression through anti-PD-1. Among 13 patients treated with anti-CTLA-4, alone or in combination with anti-PD-1, objective responses were seen in 4 (31%). Additionally, one patient with MCC refractory to anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 experienced tumor regression with anti-PD-L1. Our report – the largest case series to date describing this patient population – provides evidence that sequentially-administered salvage immune checkpoint blocking therapy can potentially activate anti-tumor immunity in patients with advanced anti-PD-1-refractory MCC and provides a strong rationale for formally testing these agents in multicenter clinical trials. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, our report is the first to demonstrate possible anti-tumor activity of second-line treatment with a PD-L1 antibody in a patient with anti-PD-1-refractory disease.

BackgroundImmunotherapies are becoming front-line treatments for many advanced cancers, and combinations of two or more therapies are beginning to be investigated. Based on their individual antitumor capabilities, we sought to determine whether combination oncolytic virus (OV) and radiation therapy (RT) may improve cancer outcomes.MethodsTo investigate the activity of this combination therapy, we used in vitro mouse and human cancer cell lines as well as a mouse model of skin cancer. After initial results, we further included immune checkpoint blockade, whose addition constituted a triple combination immunotherapy.ResultsOur findings demonstrate that OV and RT reduce tumor growth via conversion of immunologically ‘cold’ tumors to ‘hot’, via a CD8+ T cell-dependent and IL-1α-dependent mechanism that is associated with increased PD-1/PD-L1 expression, and the triple combination of OV, RT, and PD-1 checkpoint inhibition impedes tumor growth and prolongs survival. Further, we describe the response of a PD-1-refractory patient with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma who received the triple combination of OV, RT, and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), and went on to experience unexpected, prolonged control and survival. He remains off-treatment and is without evidence of progression for >44 months since study entry.ConclusionsEffective systemic antitumor immune response is rarely elicited by a single therapy. In a skin cancer mouse model, we demonstrate improved outcomes with combination OV, RT, and ICI treatment, which is associated with mechanisms involving augmented CD8+ T cell infiltration and IL-1α expression. We report tumor reduction and prolonged survival of a patient with skin cancer treated with combination OV, RT, and ICI. Overall, our data provide strong rationale for combining OV, RT, and ICI for treatment of patients with ICI-refractory skin and potentially other cancers.

Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are some of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies. In general, early-stage NMSCs have favorable outcomes; however, a small subset of patients develop resistant, advanced, or metastatic disease, or aggressive subtypes that are more challenging to treat successfully. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), and basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Although ICIs have demonstrated activity against NMSCs, the routine clinical use of these agents may be more challenging due to a number of factors including the lack of predictive biomarkers, the need to consider special patient populations, the management of toxicity, and the assessment of atypical responses. With the goal of improving patient care by providing expert guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew on the published literature as well as their own clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for NMSCs, including staging, biomarker testing, patient selection, therapy selection, post-treatment response evaluation and surveillance, and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations, among others. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to provide guidance to cancer care professionals treating patients with NMSCs.