Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab prolongs progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in resected stage III disease. KEYNOTE-716 assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with completely resected, high-risk, stage II melanoma. We report results from the planned first and second interim analyses for recurrence-free survival. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, involving 160 academic medical centres and hospitals in 16 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA), patients aged 12 years or older with newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (TNM stage T3b or T4 with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy) were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four and stratified by T-category (3b, 4a, and 4b) and paediatric status (age 12-17 years vs ≥18 years), using an interactive response technology system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg in paediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. All patients, clinical investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to recurrence or death) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment). The primary endpoint was met if recurrence-free survival was significantly improved for pembrolizumab versus placebo at either the first interim analysis (after approximately 128 patients had events) or second interim analysis (after 179 patients had events) under multiplicity control. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 1182 patients were screened, of whom 976 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489; ITT population). The median age was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 387 (40%) patients were female and 589 (60%) were male. 874 (90%) of 976 patients were White and 799 (82%) were not Hispanic or Latino. 483 (99%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 486 (99%) of 489 in the placebo group received assigned treatment. At the first interim analysis (data cutoff on Dec 4, 2020; median follow-up of 14·4 months [IQR 10·2-18·7] in the pembrolizumab group and 14·3 months [10·1-18·7] in the placebo group), 54 (11%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 82 (17%) of 489 in the placebo group had a first recurrence of disease or died (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·46-0·92]; p=0·0066). At the second interim analysis (data cutoff on June 21, 2021; median follow-up of 20·9 months [16·7-25·3] in the pembrolizumab group and 20·9 months [16·6-25·3] in the placebo group), 72 (15%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 115 (24%) in the placebo group had a first recurrence or died (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·82]). Median recurrence-free survival was not reached in either group at either assessment timepoint. At the first interim analysis, grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (16%) of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab groups versus 21 (4%) of 486 in the placebo group. At the first interim analysis, four patients died from an adverse event, all in the placebo group (one each due to pneumonia, COVID-19-related pneumonia, suicide, and recurrent cancer), and at the second interim analysis, one additional patient, who was in the pembrolizumab group, died from an adverse event (COVID-19-related pneumonia). No deaths due to study treatment occurred. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for up to approximately 1 year for stage IIB or IIC melanoma resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death versus placebo, with a manageable safety profile. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Therapeutic vaccines for breast cancer: Has the time finally come?

The ability to exploit the immune system as a weapon against cancer has revolutionised the treatment of cancer patients, especially through immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, ICIs demonstrated a modest benefit in treating breast cancer (BC), with the exception of certain subsets of triple-negative BCs. An immune-suppressive tumour microenvironment (TME), typically present in BC, is an important factor in the poor response to immunotherapy. After almost two decades of poor clinical trial results, cancer vaccines (CVs), an active immunotherapy, have come back in the spotlight because of some technological advancements, ultimately boosted by coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In particular, neoantigens are emerging as the preferred targets for CVs, with gene-based and viral vector-based platforms in development. Moreover, lipid nanoparticles proved to be immunogenic and efficient delivery vehicles. Past clinical trials investigating CVs focused especially on the metastatic disease, where the TME is more likely compromised by inhibitory mechanisms. In this sense, favouring the use of CVs as monotherapy in premalignant or in the adjuvant setting and establishing combination treatments (i.e. CV plus ICI) in late-stage disease are promising strategies. This review provides a full overview of the past and current breast cancer vaccine landscape.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for cancer patients: a call to action.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than 96 million people worldwide, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a pandemic in March 2020. Although an optimal medical treatment of COVID-19 remains uncertain, an unprecedented global effort to develop an effective vaccine hopes to restore pre-pandemic conditions. Since cancer patients as a group have been shown to be at a higher risk of severe COVID-19, the development of safe and effective vaccines is crucial. However, cancer patients may be underrepresented in ongoing phase 3 randomised clinical trials investigating COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, we encourage stakeholders to provide real-time data about the characteristics of recruited participants, including clearly identifiable subgroups, like cancer patients, with sample sizes large enough to determine safety and efficacy. Moreover, we envisage a prompt implementation of suitable registries for pharmacovigilance reporting, in order to monitor the effects of COVID-19 vaccines and immunisation rates in patients with cancer. That said, data extrapolation from other vaccine trials (e.g. anti-influenza virus) showed a favourable safety and efficacy profile for cancer patients. On the basis of the evidence discussed, we believe that the benefits of the vaccination outweigh the risks. Consequently, healthcare authorities should prioritise vaccinations for cancer patients, with the time-point of administration agreed on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology are advocating for cancer patients a high priority status, in the hope of attenuating the consequences of the pandemic in this particularly vulnerable population.