A paradigm shift in understanding vulvovaginal melanoma as a distinct tumor type compared with cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare molecular and immune profiles of vulvovaginal melanoma (VVM) with cutaneous melanoma (CM) and explore the significance of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents on survival. METHODS: Samples from VVM and CM tumors underwent comprehensive molecular and immune profiling. Treatment and survival data were extracted from insurance claims data and OS was calculated from time of ICI treatment to last contact. Statistical significance was determined using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum test and adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Molecular analysis was performed on 142 VVM and 3823 CM tumors. VVM demonstrated significantly (q < 0·01) less frequent BRAF and more frequent KIT, ATRX, and SF3B1 mutations. Alterations in pathways involving DNA damage and mRNA splicing were more common in VVM, while alterations in cell cycle and chromatin remodeling were less common. Immunogenicity of VVM was lower than CM, with an absence of high TMB (0% vs 46.9%) and lower PD-L1 positivity (18·0% vs 29·5%). Median immune checkpoint gene expression was lower in VVM, as were cell fractions for type I macrophages and CD8+ T-cells(q < 0·01). Myeloid dendritic cells were increased in VVM(q < 0·01). Median OS was shorter for VVM than for CM patients treated with ICIs (17·6 versus 37·9 months, HR:1·65 (95% CI 1·02-2·67) p = 0·04). CONCLUSIONS: VVM has a distinct molecular and immune profile compared to CM, which may contribute to the worse survival in VVM compared to CM patients treated with ICI therapy. Though ICIs have been a mainstay of treatment in recent years, our findings suggest that new therapeutic strategies are needed.

Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors are standard adjuvant treatment for stage IIB-IV resected melanoma, but many patients recur. Our study aimed to evaluate whether mRNA-4157 (V940), a novel mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy, combined with pembrolizumab, improved recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected high-risk melanoma. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2b, adjuvant study of mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients, enrolled from sites in the USA and Australia, with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma. Patients with completely resected melanoma (stage IIIB-IV) were assigned 2:1 to receive open-label mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy. mRNA-4157 was administered intramuscularly (maximum nine doses) and pembrolizumab intravenously (maximum 18 doses) in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03897881. FINDINGS: From July 18, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 157 patients were assigned to mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy (n=107) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=50); median follow-up was 23 months and 24 months, respectively. Recurrence-free survival was longer with combination versus monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence or death, 0·561 [95% CI 0·309-1·017]; two-sided p=0·053), with lower recurrence or death event rate (24 [22%] of 107 vs 20 [40%] of 50); 18-month recurrence-free survival was 79% (95% CI 69·0-85·6) versus 62% (46·9-74·3). Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the monotherapy group, with no mRNA-4157-related grade 4-5 events. Immune-mediated adverse event frequency was similar for the combination (37 [36%]) and monotherapy (18 [36%]) groups. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with resected high-risk melanoma and showed a manageable safety profile. These results provide evidence that an mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy might be beneficial in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Moderna in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Combination of Itacitinib or Parsaclisib with Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: A Phase I Study.

PURPOSE: This phase Ib open-label, multicenter, platform study (NCT02646748) explored safety, tolerability, and preliminary activity of itacitinib (Janus kinase 1 inhibitor) or parsaclisib (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ inhibitor) in combination with pembrolizumab [programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor]. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors with disease progression following all available therapies were enrolled and received itacitinib (Part 1 initially 300 mg once daily) or parsaclisib (Part 1 initially 10 mg once daily; Part 2 all patients 0.3 mg once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks). RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were enrolled in the study and treated with itacitinib (Part 1, n = 49) or parsaclisib (Part 1, n = 83; Part 2, n = 27) plus pembrolizumab. The maximum tolerated/pharmacologically active doses were itacitinib 300 mg once daily and parsaclisib 30 mg once daily. Most common itacitinib treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were fatigue, nausea, and anemia. Most common parsaclisib TRAEs were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and pyrexia in Part 1, and fatigue, maculopapular rash, diarrhea, nausea, and pruritus in Part 2. In patients receiving itacitinib plus pembrolizumab, four (8.2%) achieved a partial response (PR) in Part 1. Among patients receiving parsaclisib plus pembrolizumab, 5 (6.0%) achieved a complete response and 9 (10.8%) a PR in Part 1; 5 of 27 (18.5%) patients in Part 2 achieved a PR. CONCLUSIONS: Although combination of itacitinib or parsaclisib with pembrolizumab showed modest clinical activity in this study, the overall response rates observed did not support continued development in patients with solid tumors. SIGNIFICANCE: PD-1 blockade combined with targeted therapies have demonstrated encouraging preclinical activity. In this phase I study, patients with advanced solid tumors treated with pembrolizumab (PD-1 inhibitor) and either itacitinib (JAK1 inhibitor) or parsaclisib (PI3Kδ inhibitor) experienced limited clinical activity beyond that expected with checkpoint inhibition alone and showed little effect on T-cell infiltration in the tumor. These results do not support continued development of these combinations.

Multi-omic profiling reveals discrepant immunogenic properties and a unique tumor microenvironment among melanoma brain metastases.

Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are clinically challenging to treat and exhibit variable responses to immune checkpoint therapies. Prior research suggests that MBM exhibit poor tumor immune responses and are enriched in oxidative phosphorylation. Here, we report results from a multi-omic analysis of a large, real-world melanoma cohort. MBM exhibited lower interferon-gamma (IFNγ) scores and T cell-inflamed scores compared to primary cutaneous melanoma (PCM) or extracranial metastases (ECM), which was independent of tumor mutational burden. Among MBM, there were fewer computationally inferred immune cell infiltrates, which correlated with lower TNF and IL12B mRNA levels. Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) revealed suppression of inflammatory responses and dendritic cell maturation pathways. MBM also demonstrated a higher frequency of pathogenic PTEN mutations and angiogenic signaling. Oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) was enriched in MBM and negatively correlated with NK cell and B cell-associated transcriptomic signatures. Modulating metabolic or angiogenic pathways in MBM may improve responses to immunotherapy in this difficult-to-treat patient subset.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0.

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600- mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Phase II clinical and immune correlate study of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab for high-risk resected melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy for high-risk resected melanoma with programmed cell-death 1 blockade results in a median relapse-free survival (RFS) of 5 years. The addition of low dose ipilimumab (IPI) to a regimen of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) in CheckMate-915 did not result in increased RFS. A pilot phase II adjuvant study of either standard dose or low dose IPI with NIVO was conducted at two centers to evaluate RFS with correlative biomarker studies. METHODS: Patients with resected stages IIIB/IIIC/IV melanoma received either IPI 3 mg/kg and NIVO 1 mg/kg (cohort 4) or IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg (cohorts 5 and 6) induction therapy every 3 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by maintenance NIVO. In an amalgamated subset of patients across cohorts, peripheral T cells at baseline and on-treatment were assessed by flow cytometry and RNA sequencing for exploratory biomarkers. RESULTS: High rates of grade 3-4 adverse events precluded completion of induction therapy in 50%, 35% and 7% of the patients in cohorts 4, 5 and 6, respectively. At a median of 63.9 months of follow-up, 16/56 patients (29%) relapsed. For all patients, at 5 years, RFS was 71% (95% CI: 60 to 84), and overall survival was 94% (95% CI: 88 to 100). Expansion of CD3+CD4+CD38+CD127-GARP- T cells, an on-treatment increase in CD39 expression in CD8+ T cells, and T-cell expression of phosphorylated signal-transducer-and-activator-of-transcription (STAT)2 and STAT5 were associated with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant IPI/NIVO at the induction doses used resulted in promising relapse-free and overall survival, although with a high rate of grade 3-4 adverse events. Biomarker analyses highlight an association of ectoenzyme-expressing T cells and STAT signaling pathways with relapse, warranting future validation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01176474 and NCT02970981.

Clinical activity of PD-1 inhibition in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common malignancy worldwide, yet the management of patients with advanced or metastatic disease is challenging, with limited treatment options. Recently, programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) inhibition has demonstrated activity in BCC after prior Hedgehog inhibitor treatment. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of BCC patients treated with PD-1 inhibitor therapy. We examined the efficacy and safety of PD-1 therapy, as well as clinical and pathological variables in association with outcomes. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and duration of response (DOR) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Toxicity was graded per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients with BCC who were treated with PD-1 inhibition were included for analysis, including 20 (69.0%) with locally advanced and 9 (31.0%) with metastatic disease. The objective response rate was 31.0%, with five partial responses (17.2%), and four complete responses (13.8%). Nine patients had stable disease (31.0%), with a disease control rate of 62.1%. The median DOR was not reached. Median PFS was 12.2 months (95% CI 0.0 to 27.4). Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI 18.1 to 46.7). Two patients (6.9%) developed grade 3 or higher toxicity, while four patients (13.8%) discontinued PD-1 inhibition because of toxicity. Higher platelets (p=0.022) and any grade toxicity (p=0.024) were significantly associated with disease control rate. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical efficacy of PD-1 inhibition among patients with advanced or metastatic BCC in this real-world cohort were comparable to published trial data. Further investigation of PD-1 inhibition is needed to define its optimal role for patients with this disease.