ABSTRACT
Background: Adjuvant anti-PD1 therapy reduces the risk of recurrence in resected stage III/IV melanoma and is now standard care. Limited data exist beyond registration trials. We sought to explore the use of adjuvant immunotherapy in routine clinical practice. Methods: Patients (pts) from 11 Australian centres who received adjuvant nivolumab (nivo) for resected stage III/IV melanoma were included in this study. Efficacy, toxicity, surveillance, recurrence characteristics, management and further treatment outcomes were examined. Results:471 pts received adjuvant nivo between 8/2018 to 3/2020. 318 (68%) were male, median age 64y (range 17-94), 28 (6%) were AJCC v8 IIIA, 194 (41%) IIIB, 175 (37%) IIIC, 11 (2%) IIID, and 63 (13%) IV. 65 (14%) pts had intransit only disease, 152 (37%) pts were sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB+) and only 9 (6%) of these had CLND. 128 (27%) had BRAF mutant (BRAFmt) melanoma. Median time from resection to start of adjuvant nivo was 1.8 months (mo) (range 0.2-4.0). Median FU was 17.5 mo. 256 (54%) pts completed 12 months of nivo, 86 (18%) ceased early for toxicity, 76 (16%) for disease recurrence, 25 (5%) other reasons (COVID-19 8, co-morbidities 7, pt choice 10);28 (6%) pts were still receiving nivo at data cut. Median duration of treatment was 10.4 mo (range 0-16.8). 117 (25%) pts recurred;76 (65%) while ON nivo and 41 (35%) OFF nivo ( > 1 month after last dose, including 20 pts who stopped early for toxicity). 24 mo RFS was 69%. Median time to recurrence was 6.0 mo (95% CI 5.1, 7.5). 56 (48%) had first recurrence with locoregional (LR) disease only and 61 (52%) had distant +/- LR recurrence. Of those who recurred with LR disease only, 46/56 (82%) underwent surgery, 15/46 (33%) then had adjuvant radiotherapy, and 15/46 (33%) had 'second adjuvant' therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (15/21, 71% BRAFmt pts). 10/56 (37%) pts who recurred with LR disease subsequently recurred distantly. 58/80 (73%) pts received systemic therapy at either 1st or subsequent unresectable recurrence. For recurrences ON nivo, 18 pts received combination ipilimumab (ipi) and nivo (ORR 44%), 4 pts had ipi monotherapy (ORR 0%), 7 pts had anti-PD1 + investigational agent (ORR 57%), 11 pts had BRAF/MEK inhibitors (ORR 82%). 1 pt had PD with ongoing PD1 monotherapy. For recurrences OFF nivo, no patients responded to PD1 alone (n = 1) or with an investigational agent (n = 1), ipi+nivo (n = 3), ipi monotherapy (n = 4) or chemotherapy (n = 2);6 pts received BRAF/MEK inhibitors (ORR 50%). 2-year OS was 92%. Conclusions: Despite higher rates of discontinuation due to toxicity compared with clinical trial cohorts, the efficacy data appear similar. Most early recurrences are distant, and many with LR recurrence soon recur distantly thereafter. Second line adjuvant BRAF/MEK inhibitors are frequently used for resected LR recurrence. Both ipi+nivo and BRAF/MEK inhibitors appear to have activity after distant recurrence.
ABSTRACT
Background: The long-term benefit of adjuvant dab + tram in pts with resected stage III BRAFV600E/K-mutant melanoma was demonstrated in COMBI-AD where AEs led to permanent discontinuation of dab + tram in 26% of pts, most often due to pyrexia (9%). The COMBIAPlus trial (NCT03551626) is designed to evaluate whether an adapted pyrexia management algorithm could reduce high-grade pyrexia and other pyrexia-related adverse outcomes, such as treatment cessation and hospitalization. Methods: COMBI-APlus is an open-label, Phase IIIb trial evaluating an adapted pyrexia management algorithm in pts with high-risk resected stage III BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma treated with 12 mo of adjuvant dab + tram. In the adapted algorithm, both dab and tram were interrupted promptly at the onset of pyrexia (temperature ≥ 38°C). In the event of suspected recurrent pyrexia, treatment may be interrupted in the presence of pyrexia syndrome (ie, chills, rigors, night sweats, or influenza-like symptoms without temperature ≥ 38°C) at investigator discretion. Treatment with dab + tram was restarted at the same dose level once pts were symptom free for ≥ 24 hours. The primary endpoint is the composite rate of grade 3/4 pyrexia, hospitalization due to pyrexia, or permanent discontinuation due to pyrexia vs a historical control from COMBI-AD (20%;95% CI, 16.3%-24.1%). Secondary endpoints include relapse-free survival (RFS) and safety. Results: A total of 552 pts were enrolled. At the data cutoff (5 Oct 2020), all pts had completed 12 mo of treatment;median duration of follow-up was 18.4 mo. COMBI-APlus met its primary endpoint of significant improvement in composite rate of pyrexia. The composite rate was 8.0% (95% CI, 5.9%-10.6%), with rates of 3.8% for grade 3/4 pyrexia, 4.3% for hospitalization due to pyrexia, and 2.4% for discontinuation due to pyrexia. The estimated 12-mo RFS rate was 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%-93.9%). The most common AEs (≥ 20%) were pyrexia (67.8%), headache (31.7%), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (27.9%), diarrhoea (27.0%), chills (26.4%), fatigue (25.7%), asthenia (23.6%), nausea (23.4%), rash (21.4%), and arthralgia (21.0%). AEs of any type led to permanent dab + tram discontinuation in 14.7% of pts. Conclusions: This primary analysis suggests the new adapted pyrexia management algorithm is effective in reducing grade 3/4 pyrexia, pyrexiarelated hospitalization, and treatment discontinuation in pts receiving adjuvant dab + tram. The early efficacy appears consistent with that observed in COMBI-AD. The growing experience of oncologists in managing pyrexia with this simple algorithm may reduce the need for hospitalization or visits to a healthcare provider, which is highly desirable during the current COVID- 19 pandemic. Thus, more pts can remain on treatment and derive benefit.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Based on favourable outcomes in clinical trials, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), most notably programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, are now widely used across multiple cancer types. However, due to their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical studies often do not address challenges presented by non-trial populations. DESIGN: This review summarises available data on the efficacy and safety of ICIs in trial-ineligible patients, including those with autoimmune disease, chronic viral infections, organ transplants, organ dysfunction, poor performance status, and brain metastases, as well as the elderly, children, and those who are pregnant. In addition, we review data concerning other real-world challenges with ICIs, including timing of therapy switch, relationships to radiotherapy or surgery, re-treatment after an immune-related toxicity, vaccinations in patients on ICIs, and current experience around ICI and coronavirus disease-19. Where possible, we provide recommendations to aid the often-difficult decision-making process in those settings. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that ICIs are often active and have an acceptable safety profile in the populations described above, with the exception of PD-1 inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients. Decisions about whether to treat with ICIs should be personalised and require multidisciplinary input and careful counselling of patients with respect to potential risks and benefits. Clinical judgements need to be carefully weighed, considering factors such as underlying cancer type, feasibility of alternative treatment options, or activity in trial-eligible patients.