Outcomes after progression of disease with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy for patients with advanced melanoma.

Greater than one-half of patients with melanoma who are treated with antibodies blocking programmed cell death protein 1 receptor (anti-PD-1) experience disease progression. The objective of the current study was to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma that progressed while they were receiving anti-PD-1 therapy. The authors evaluated 383 consecutively treated patients who received anti-PD-1 for advanced melanoma between 2009 and 2019. Patient and disease characteristics at baseline and at the time of progression, subsequent therapies, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival were assessed. Of 383 patients, 247 experienced disease progression. The median survival after progression was 6.8 months. There was no difference in survival noted after disease progression based on primary tumor subtype, receipt of prior therapy, or therapy type. However, significantly improved survival after disease progression correlated with clinical features at the time of progression, including normal lactate dehydrogenase, more favorable metastatic stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition stage IV M1a vs M1b, M1c, or M1d), mutation status (NRAS or treatment-naive BRAF V600 vs BRAF/NRAS wild-type or treatment-experienced BRAF-mutant), decreasing tumor bulk, and progression at solely existing lesions. After progression, approximately 54.3% of patients received additional systemic therapy. A total of 41 patients received BRAF/MEK inhibition (ORR of 58.6%, including 70.4% for BRAF/MEK-naive patients), 30 patients received ipilimumab (ORR of 0%), and 11 patients received ipilimumab plus nivolumab (ORR of 27.3%). The current study identified prognostic factors in advanced melanoma for patients who experienced disease progression while receiving anti-PD-1, including lactate dehydrogenase, stage of disease, site of disease progression, tumor size, and mutation status.

Patrinely JR Jr ，Baker LX ，Davis EJ ，Song H ，Ye F ，Johnson DB ... -  《-》

Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1). This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1. We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p<0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis. In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma. None.

Pires da Silva I ，Ahmed T ，Reijers ILM ，Weppler AM ，Betof Warner A ，Patrinely JR ，Serra-Bellver P ，Allayous C ，Mangana J ，Nguyen K ，Zimmer L ，Trojaniello C ，Stout D ，Lyle M ，Klein O ，Gerard CL ，Michielin O ，Haydon A ，Ascierto PA ，Carlino MS ，Lebbe C ，Lorigan P ，Johnson DB ，Sandhu S ，Lo SN ，Blank CU ，Menzies AM ，Long GV ... -  《-》

MEK inhibition may increase survival of NRAS-mutated melanoma patients treated with checkpoint blockade: Results of a retrospective multicentre analysis of 364 patients.

Melanoma harbours genetic alterations in genes such as BRAF, NRAS and KIT. Activating NRAS mutations are present in about 20% of melanomas. Even though BRAF mutations can be effectively targeted with specific inhibitors, this approach has proven more challenging in cases of NRAS mutations. Previous reports suggested that immunotherapy might be more successful in NRAS-mutated compared to BRAF-mutated or BRAF/NRAS wildtype melanoma. In this study, overall survival and response to anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab) and anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) therapy of 364 patients with metastatic melanoma were assessed comparing 236 NRAS-mutated patients with 128 NRAS wildtype patients. Subtyping of NRAS mutation in 211 cases revealed 12 different genotypes of which Q61 mutations were predominant (95%). Patients with NRAS mutant melanoma showed similar response rates to checkpoint inhibitor therapy compared to NRAS wildtype patients with 15% versus 13% for ipilimumab (P = 0.731), 21% versus 13% for anti-PD-1 monotherapy (P = 0.210) and 40% versus 39% for ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 therapy in combination or sequence (P = 0.859). Nevertheless, median overall survival of patients with NRAS mutant melanoma was significantly lower with 21 months compared to 33 months in NRAS wildtype melanoma patients (P = 0.034). Therapy with oral MEK inhibitors before or after checkpoint inhibitor therapy showed a trend toward a survival benefit in patients with NRAS mutant melanoma. Immune checkpoint inhibition shows comparable response rates in NRAS-mutated and NRAS wildtype melanoma even though survival is less favourable in case of NRAS mutation. Additional MEK inhibition might improve clinical benefit.

Kirchberger MC ，Ugurel S ，Mangana J ，Heppt MV ，Eigentler TK ，Berking C ，Schadendorf D ，Schuler G ，Dummer R ，Heinzerling L ... -  《-》

The impact of BRAF mutation status on clinical outcomes with anti-PD-1 monotherapy versus combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in treatment-naïve advanced stage melanoma.

Nearly half of all metastatic melanoma patients possess the BRAF V600 mutation. Several therapies are approved for advanced stage melanoma, but it is unclear if there is a differential outcome to various immunotherapy regimens based on BRAF mutation status. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of metastatic or unresectable melanoma patients who were treated with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) or anti-PD-1 monotherapy, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, as first-line treatment. 235 previously untreated patients were identified in our study. Our univariate analysis showed no statistical difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with ipi/nivo versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF V600 mutant cohort, but there was improved PFS [HR: 0.48, 95% CI, 0.28-0.80] and OS [HR: 0.50, 95% CI, 0.26-0.96] with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF WT group. After adjusting for known prognostic variables in our multivariable analysis, the BRAF WT cohort continued to show PFS and OS benefit with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Our single-institution analysis suggests ipi/nivo should be considered over anti-PD-1 monotherapy as the initial immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma patients regardless of BRAF mutation status, but possibly with greater benefit in BRAF WT.

Ma VT ，Daignault-Newton S ，Waninger JJ ，Journey S ，Chopra Z ，Tezel A ，Redman BG ，Fecher LA ，Green MD ，Alva AS ，Lao CD ... -  《-》

Real-world survival of patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutated melanoma treated with front-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, anti-PD-1 antibodies, or nivolumab/ipilimumab.

The optimal treatment sequence for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma is unknown. BRAF/MEK inhibition (BRAF/MEKi), single agent anti-PD-1 (aPD-1) antibodies and combination immune checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab (niv/ipi) are all approved; however, they have not been prospectively compared. Therefore, we sought to compare overall survival of patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with either front-line BRAF/MEKi, aPD-1, or niv/ipi. Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma who had received BRAF/MEKi, niv/ipi, or aPD-1 in the front-line setting were identified from a nationwide database comprising de-identified patient-level structured and unstructured data derived from electronic health records. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to measure the effect of front-line treatment, age (>64 or not), LDH (elevated or not), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (>1 or not) on survival. Five hundred and sixty seven patients with advanced disease and treated with front-line aPD-1 (n = 162), BRAF/MEKi (n = 297) or niv/ipi (n = 108) were identified. With a median follow-up of 22.4 months, median overall survival (OS) for patients treated with front-line niv/ipi was not reached (NR) while median OS for patients treated with aPD-1 or BRAF/MEKi was 39.5 months and 13.2 months, respectively. Front-line treatment with PD-1 and niv/ipi were associated with statistically longer survival than BRAF/MEKi in multivariate analyses. In our real-world retrospective analysis, patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with front-line niv/ipi or aPD-1 had longer survival compared to those treated with front-line BRAF/MEKi.

Moser JC ，Chen D ，Hu-Lieskovan S ，Grossmann KF ，Patel S ，Colonna SV ，Ying J ，Hyngstrom JR ... -  《Cancer Medicine》