Purpose TAK-733, an investigational, selective, allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor effects against multiple cancer cell lines and xenograft models. This first-in-human study investigated TAK-733 in patients with solid tumors. Methods Patients received oral TAK-733 once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day treatment cycles. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for AEs version 3.0. Response was assessed using RECIST v1.1. Blood samples for TAK-733 pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (inhibition of ERK phosphorylation) were collected during cycle 1. Results Fifty-one patients received TAK-733 0.2-22 mg. Primary diagnoses included uveal melanoma (24 %), colon cancer (22 %), and cutaneous melanoma (10 %). Four patients had dose-limiting toxicities of dermatitis acneiform, plus fatigue and pustular rash in one patient, and stomatitis in one patient. The maximum tolerated dose was 16 mg. Common drug-related AEs included dermatitis acneiform (51 %), diarrhea (29 %), and increased blood creatine phosphokinase (20 %); grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported in 27 (53 %) patients. Median T_max was 3 h; systemic exposure increased less than dose-proportionally over the dose range 0.2-22 mg. On day 21 maximum inhibition of ERK phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 46-97 % was seen in patients receiving TAK-733 ≥ 8.4 mg. Among 41 response-evaluable patients, 2 (5 %) patients with cutaneous melanoma (one with BRAF L597R mutant melanoma) had partial responses. Conclusions TAK-733 had a generally manageable toxicity profile up to the maximum tolerated dose, and showed the anticipated pharmacodynamic effect of sustained inhibition of ERK phosphorylation. Limited antitumor activity was demonstrated. Further investigation is not currently planned.

Associations between HLA class I antigen expression and the efficacy of a melanoma vaccine (Melacine; Corixa Corp.) were initially described in stage IV melanoma. Similar associations were observed in S9035, a phase III adjuvant trial evaluating Melacine for 2 years compared with observation in patients with stage II melanoma. This report provides long-term results. The effects of treatment on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated, and prespecified analyses investigated associations between treatment and HLA expression. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for tumor thickness, ulceration and site, method of nodal staging, and sex. P = 0.01 was considered statistically significant in subset analyses to account for multiple comparisons. For the entire study population of 689 patients, there were no significant differences in RFS or OS by treatment arm. HLA serotyping was performed on 553 (80%) patients (vaccine, 294; observation, 259). Among the subpopulation with HLA-A2 and/or HLA-Cw3 serotype, vaccine arm patients (n = 178) had marginally improved RFS (adjusted P = 0.02) and significantly improved OS compared with observation arm patients (n = 145), with 10-year OS of 75% and 63%, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.62; 99% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-1.02; P = 0.01]. There was no impact of HLA-A2 and/or HLA-Cw3 expression on observation arm patients. An analysis of mature data from S9035 indicates a significant OS benefit from adjuvant vaccine therapy for patients with HLA-A2- and/or HLA-Cw3-expressing melanoma. The possibility of interactions between HLA type and outcome should be considered in future immunotherapy trials. Further investigations of melanoma-associated antigens present in Melacine and presented by HLA-A2 and HLA-Cw3 may be warranted.

As part of the 2021 Immunotherapy Bridge virtual congress (December 1-2, Naples, Italy), the Great Debate sessions featured experts who were assigned counter opposing views on four important questions in immunotherapy today. The first topic was whether oncolytic viruses or other specific immunomodulators were the more promising approach for intralesional therapy. The second was whether early surrogate endpoints, such as response rate or progression-free survival, correlate with long-term overall survival was considered. Thirdly, whether vaccines can transform cold into hot tumors was discussed and, finally, broad versus deep analytic profiling approaches to gain insights into immune-oncology development were compared. As with previous Bridge congresses, presenters were invited by the meeting Chairs and positions taken during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal view. In addition, the views summarised in this article are based on available evidence but may reflect personal interpretation of these data, clinical experience and subjective opinion of the speaker.

AIM: Antibodies to programmed death-1 receptor and its ligand (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) produce durable responses in many cancers. However, the long-term effects of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 blockade are not well defined. We identified the toxicities, health outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) amongst long-term survivors treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1. METHODS: We assessed 217 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for melanoma, renal cell carcinoma or non-small-cell lung carcinoma between 2009 and 2017, with survival greater than two years after treatment. Patient and tumour characteristics, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), cardiometabolic parameters (glucose, blood pressure, body mass index [BMI]), body composition (using automated body composition analyser, computed tomography and Slice-o-matic software) and HRQoL outcomes were tracked. RESULTS: Among the included patients, most were men (70.3%) and at anti-PD-1/PD-L1 initiation had an average age of 61.0 years and median BMI of 28.5. Median overall survival was not reached; 33 (15.2%) died during the follow-up primarily from progressive cancer (n = 28). At the last follow-up, most patients Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 (38%) or 1 (41%). There was no difference in blood pressure, glucose or BMI from baseline to two years after treatment initiation. Body composition showed increased adiposity (p = 0.05), skeletal muscle mass (p = 0.03) and skeletal muscle gauge (p = 0.04). We observed chronic irAEs at the last follow-up including hypothyroidism (10.6%), arthritis (3.2%), adrenal insufficiency (3.2%) and neuropathy (2.8%). New diagnoses of type 2 diabetes (6.5%) and hypertension (6.0%) were observed, with uncertain relationship to anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Patient-reported outcomes compared favourably with cancer and general populations, although younger age (p = 0.003) and need for subsequent therapy (p = 0.03) were associated with worse HRQoL outcomes. CONCLUSION: Durable responses to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and favourable HRQoL outcomes are encouraging. Chronic events may be more common than previously thought although no clear chronic adverse cardiometabolic effects were observed.

Introduction

Vemurafenib induces tumour regression in most patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma; eventually, most experience progressive disease (PD). Long-term follow-up of patients with BRAF(V600E) melanoma treated in the phase 1 vemurafenib trial is reported.

Methods

Patients received vemurafenib 240-1120 mg (dose escalation cohort) or 960 mg (extension cohort) orally twice daily. Clinical response was evaluated every 8 weeks by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST). Patients with PD amenable to local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy) were allowed to continue vemurafenib after progression. Overall survival (OS) from time of treatment initiation and from PD was estimated. Sites of PD were recorded.

Results

Forty-eight patients (escalation cohort, n = 16; extension cohort, n = 32) received therapeutic doses of vemurafenib (⩾ 240 mg twice daily). Forty-four patients had PD by the time of this analysis and four remained progression free (follow-up time, 1.2-56.1 months). Median OS was 14 months (range, 1.2-56.1); 3- and 4-year melanoma-specific survival rate in the extension cohort was 26% and 19%, respectively. Median OS was 26.0 months (range, 7.7-56.1) among 20 patients who continued vemurafenib after local therapy. Median treatment duration beyond initial PD was 3.8 months (range, 1.1-26.6). In the extension cohort, six and five patients were alive after 3 and 4 years, respectively, on vemurafenib monotherapy.

Conclusions

Some patients with melanoma achieved long-term survival with vemurafenib monotherapy. Continuation of vemurafenib after PD might be beneficial in some patients because remaining disease might continue to respond to BRAF inhibition.

Purpose

High-dose interferon (IFN) for 1 year (HDI) is the US Food and Drug Administration-approved adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk melanoma. Efforts to modify IFN dose and schedule have not improved efficacy. We sought to determine whether a shorter course of biochemotherapy would be more effective.

Patients and methods

S0008 (S0008: Chemotherapy Plus Biological Therapy in Treating Patients With Melanoma) was an Intergroup phase III trial that enrolled high-risk patients (stage IIIA-N2a through IIIC-N3), randomly assigning them to receive either HDI or biochemotherapy consisting of dacarbazine, cisplatin, vinblastine, interleukin-2, IFN alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor given every 21 days for three cycles. Coprimary end points were relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

In all, 432 patients were enrolled. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 57% and 7% of HDI patients and 36% and 40% of biochemotherapy patients, respectively. At a median follow-up of 7.2 years, biochemotherapy improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97; P = .015), with a median RFS of 4.0 years (95% CI, 1.9 years to not reached [NR]) versus 1.9 years for HDI (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.8 years) and a 5-year RFS of 48% versus 39%. Median OS was not different (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.31; P = .55), with a median OS of 9.9 years (95% CI, 4.62 years to NR) for biochemotherapy versus 6.7 years (95% CI, 4.5 years to NR) for HDI and a 5-year OS of 56% for both arms.

Conclusion

Biochemotherapy is a shorter, alternative adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk melanoma that provides statistically significant improvement in RFS but no difference in OS and more toxicity compared with HDI.

Clinically acquired resistance to MAPK inhibitor (MAPKi) therapies for melanoma cannot be fully explained by genomic mechanisms and may be accompanied by co-evolution of intra-tumoral immunity. We sought to discover non-genomic mechanisms of acquired resistance and dynamic immune compositions by a comparative, transcriptomic-methylomic analysis of patient-matched melanoma tumors biopsied before therapy and during disease progression. Transcriptomic alterations across resistant tumors were highly recurrent, in contrast to mutations, and were frequently correlated with differential methylation of tumor cell-intrinsic CpG sites. We identified in the tumor cell compartment supra-physiologic c-MET up-expression, infra-physiologic LEF1 down-expression and YAP1 signature enrichment as drivers of acquired resistance. Importantly, high intra-tumoral cytolytic T cell inflammation prior to MAPKi therapy preceded CD8 T cell deficiency/exhaustion and loss of antigen presentation in half of disease-progressive melanomas, suggesting cross-resistance to salvage anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Thus, melanoma acquires MAPKi resistance with highly dynamic and recurrent non-genomic alterations and co-evolving intra-tumoral immunity.

As part of a symposium, current and former directors of Immune Monitoring cores and investigative oncologists presented insights into the past, present and future of immune assessment. Dr. Gnjatic presented a classification of immune monitoring technologies ranging from universally applicable to experimental protocols, while emphasizing the need for assay harmonization. Dr. Obeng discussed physiologic differences among CD8 T cells that align with anti-tumor responses. Dr. Lyerly presented the Soldano Ferrone lecture, commemorating the passionate tumor immunologist who inspired many, and covered a timeline of monitoring technology development and its importance to immuno-oncology. Dr. Sonabend presented recent achievements in glioblastoma treatment, accentuating the range of monitoring techniques that allowed him to refine patient selection for clinical trials. Dr. Guevara-Patiño focused on hypoxia within the tumor environment and stressed that T cell viability is not to be confused with functionality. Dr. Butterfield accentuated monitoring of dendritic cell metabolic (dys)function as a determinant for tumor vaccine success. Lectures were interspersed with select abstract presentations. To summarize the concepts, Dr. Maecker from Stanford led an informative forum discussion, pointing towards the future of immune monitoring. Immune monitoring continues to be a guiding light towards effective immunotherapeutic strategies.

Purpose

Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAF ^V600-mutated metastatic melanoma.

Patients and methods

This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole-exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling.

Results

Whole-exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct.

The development of acquired drug resistance hampers the long-term success of B-RAF inhibitor therapy for melanoma patients. Here we show (V600E)B-RAF copy-number gain as a mechanism of acquired B-RAF inhibitor resistance in 4 out of 20 (20%) patients treated with B-RAF inhibitor. In cell lines, (V600E)B-RAF overexpression and knockdown conferred B-RAF inhibitor resistance and sensitivity, respectively. In (V600E)B-RAF amplification-driven (versus mutant N-RAS-driven) B-RAF inhibitor resistance, extracellular signal-regulated kinase reactivation is saturable, with higher doses of vemurafenib down-regulating phosho-extracellular signal-regulated kinase and re-sensitizing melanoma cells to B-RAF inhibitor. These two mechanisms of extracellular signal-regulated kinase reactivation are sensitive to the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD6244/selumetinib or its combination with the B-RAF inhibitor vemurafenib. In contrast to mutant N-RAS-mediated (V600E)B-RAF bypass, which is sensitive to C-RAF knockdown, (V600E)B-RAF amplification-mediated resistance functions largely independently of C-RAF. Thus, alternative clinical strategies may potentially overcome distinct modes of extracellular signal-regulated kinase reactivation underlying acquired B-RAF inhibitor resistance in melanoma.