The future of targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4: Is there a role?

The 2022 yearly Think Tank Meeting in Siena, Tuscany (Italy), organized by the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy (NIBIT) Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and the World Immunotherapy Council, included a focus on the future of integrating and expanding the use of targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). The conference members exchanged their views on the lessons from targeting CTLA-4 and compared the effect to the impact of blocking Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) or its ligand (PDL1). The increasing experience with both therapeutic approaches and their combination suggests that targeting CTLA-4 may lead to more durable responses for a sizeable proportion of patients, though the specific mechanism is not entirely understood. Overcoming toxicity of blocking CTLA-4 is currently being addressed with different doses and dose regimens, especially when combined with PD1/PDL1 blocking antibodies. Novel therapeutics targeting CTLA-4 hold the promise to reduce toxicities and thus allow different combination strategies in the future. On the whole, the consent was that targeting CTLA-4 remains an important strategy to improve the efficacy of cancer immunotherapies.

COLUMBUS-AD: phase III study of adjuvant encorafenib + binimetinib in resected stage IIB/IIC BRAF V600-mutated melanoma.

Stage IIB/IIC melanoma has a high risk of recurrence after surgical resection. While, for decades, surgery was the only option for high-risk stage II disease in most countries, adjuvant therapies now exist. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies significantly improve recurrence-free survival versus placebo in patients with fully resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Combined BRAF MEK inhibitor therapy showed benefits in high-risk stage III and advanced disease; however, its role in patients with fully resected stage BRAF-mutated IIB/IIC melanoma is still unknown. Here we describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled COLUMBUS-AD trial, the first study of a BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination therapy (encorafenib + binimetinib) in patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer. Although most stage II melanomas (cancer affecting the first two layers of skin) can be cured with surgery, the risk of the cancer returning and spreading to other areas of the body is high in some patients with stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Furthermore, once the melanoma has spread, it is much more difficult to treat successfully and remove all the cancer cells from the body. Some melanomas have a DNA alteration (or mutation) in what is known as the BRAF gene. This mutation can be identified by testing a sample of the tumor tissue removed during a biopsy or surgery. Testing for BRAF mutations at diagnosis can help ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment for their cancer. In some countries, surgery is the only option for patients with stage II melanoma, while in other countries, patients may be offered additional (adjuvant) anticancer treatment with immunotherapy (agents that work with the immune system to kill cancer cells). While immunotherapy can reduce the risk of melanoma recurrence, persistent, long-term toxicities are common and the use of this treatment in all stage IIB/IIC melanoma patients is not always possible. Here, we describe the rationale and design of an ongoing clinical trial (COLUMBUS-AD), which will be the first study (to our knowledge) to investigate the efficacy and safety of a treatment that specifically targets cancers with BRAF mutations (i.e., the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination of the drugs encorafenib and binimetinib) in patients with BRAF-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05270044 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

PIVOT-12: a phase III study of adjuvant bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in resected stage III/IV melanoma at high risk for recurrence.

Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG: NKTR-214) is an immunostimulatory IL-2 cytokine prodrug engineered to deliver a controlled, sustained and preferential IL-2 pathway signal. Nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, has been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting. PIVOT-02 showed that BEMPEG plus NIVO was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. PIVOT-12 is a randomized, phase III, global, multicenter, open-label study comparing adjuvant therapy with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO alone in adult and adolescent patients with completely resected cutaneous stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy, as measured by recurrence-free survival, of BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Following surgery, patients with advanced melanoma may require further treatment to reduce the likelihood of disease recurrence. Nivolumab (NIVO), a checkpoint inhibitor, reduces the risk of melanoma recurrence by enhancing the ability of the immune system to fight disease. Despite the availability of NIVO and other therapies, many patients with melanoma still experience disease recurrence after surgery. This article presents information on a clinical trial named PIVOT-12, which aims to assess the effectiveness of a new investigational drug called bempegaldesleukin that modifies the immune system and is given with NIVO to patients with stage III/IV melanoma following surgery. The main end point being measured is recurrence-free survival, which measures the time between a patient starting the study and the date of disease recurrence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04410445 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Crossover and rechallenge with pembrolizumab in recurrent patients from the EORTC 1325-MG/Keynote-054 phase III trial, pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma with complete resection of lymph nodes. In the pembrolizumab group, the incidence of grade I-V and of grade III-V immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 37% and 7%, respectively. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive intravenous (i.v.) pembrolizumab 200 mg (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) every 3 weeks, up to 1 year. On recurrence, patients could enter part 2 of the study: pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks up to 2 years, for crossover (those who received placebo) or rechallenge (those who had recurrence ≥6 months after completing 1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy). For these patients, we present the safety profile and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: At the clinical cut-off (16-Oct-2020), in the placebo group, 298 patients had a disease recurrence, in which 155 (52%) crossed over ('crossover'). In the pembrolizumab group, 297 patients completed the 1-year treatment period; 47 had a recurrence ≥6 months later, in which 20 (43%) entered the rechallenge part 2 ('rechallenge'). In the crossover group, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7-15.2) and the 3-year PFS rate was 32% (95% CI 25-40%). Among 80 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 31 (39%) had an objective response: 14 (18%) patients with complete response (CR) and 17 (21%) patients with partial response. The 2-year PFS rate from response was 69% (95% CI 48-83%). In the rechallenge group, the median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6-NE). Among 9 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 1 had an objective response (CR). Among the 175 patients, 51 (29%) had a grade I-IV irAE and 11 (6%) had a grade III-IV irAE. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab treatment after crossover yielded an overall 3-year PFS rate of 32% and a 39% ORR in evaluable patients, but the efficacy (11% ORR) was lower in those rechallenged.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will create a disease surge among cancer patients.

With major parts of the United States in lockdown, parts of Europe and the UK possibly going back on lockdown or expecting a second COVID-19 wave and rapidly rising rates elsewhere other than Asia, many people are forgoing regular cancer screenings and prevention services. More worrisome, some may be experiencing early signs or symptoms, yet they are not seeking evaluation, treatment or surveillance examinations. The long-term impact of this on patients, families and health care providers will be substantial. Not only will this strain sophisticated health systems in developed countries, but it will also overwhelm the health care infrastructure in developing countries. Health-care executives, cancer center directors, oncologists and policy experts should focus now on serving this potential "third wave" of sick patients who have delayed treatment. Stopping COVID-19 is critical. However, it's also essential to plan for the coming wave of patients who have delayed seeking care or don't have access.

Interpreting European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 scores as minimally importantly different for patients with malignant melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognised as an important end-point in cancer clinical trials. The concept of minimally important difference (MID) enables interpreting differences and changes in HRQOL scores in terms of clinical meaningfulness. We aimed to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with malignant melanoma. METHODS: Data were pooled from three published melanoma phase III trials. Anchors relying on clinician's ratings, e.g. performance status, were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of associating the anchor/EORTC QLQ-C30 scale pair. HRQOL change was evaluated between time periods that were common to all trials: start of treatment to end of treatment and end of treatment to end of follow-up. Three change status groups were formed: deteriorated by one anchor category, improved by one anchor category and no change. Patients with greater anchor change were excluded. The mean change method and linear regression were used to estimate MIDs for change in HRQOL scores within the group and between the groups of patients, respectively. RESULTS: MIDs varied according to QLQ-C30 scale, direction (improvement versus deterioration), anchor and period. MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 18 points (improvement) and -16 to -4 points (deterioration), and MIDs for between-group change ranged from 3 to 16 points and from -16 to -3 points. MIDs for most of QLQ-C30 scales ranged from 5 to 10 points in absolute values. CONCLUSIONS: These results are useful for interpreting changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores over time and for performing more accurate sample size calculations in adjuvant melanoma settings.

Isolated limb perfusion for melanoma in-transit metastases: developments in recent years and the role of tumor necrosis factor alpha.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment of in-transit metastasis of melanoma remains challenging and is essentially dictated by the biological behavior of melanoma. When lesions are large or numerous, isolated limb perfusion (ILP) is an attractive treatment modality. In this review an overview of literature on treatment options of melanoma in-transit metastases will be discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Most recent studies report on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and melphalan based ILP (TM-ILP) series or mixed series of TM-ILP and melphalan only based ILP (M-ILP). After TM-ILP complete response rates of 70% (range 44-90%) have been reported, while for M-ILP this is lower with complete response rates of 54% (range 40-76%). The only randomized trial comparing TM-ILP and M-ILP revealed no clear benefit of TNF at 3 months, but improved outcome at 6 months and in patients with bulky disease. Reports on isolated limb infusion (ILI) with melphalan and actinimycin D indicate lower response rates, but similar local control rates as M-ILP at lower cost. SUMMARY: ILP is an attractive treatment option in melanoma patients with multiple in-transit metastases. In our opinion TM-ILP is superior to M-ILP as it achieves higher response rates, especially in patients with bulky disease. When lesions are small and in the distal two-thirds of the leg only, ILI is a valuable alternative.

Autoimmunity and treatment outcome in melanoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Only a subset of melanoma patients with advanced disease seems to benefit from immunotherapy. Predictive markers identifying these patients are unfortunately not available. Whether immune-related side effects could serve as predictors for treatment response or just resemble unwanted side effects from immunotherapy will be outlined in this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Early studies suggested an association of immune-related side effects such as vitiligo and autoimmune thyroiditis with response in patients receiving IL-2 or IFNα. However, conflicting data have been reported as well, mentioning the effect of a higher rate of immune-related toxicities during prolonged administration of the drug in responders/survivors. This type of bias is also known as guarantee-time bias. Recently, a clearly significant and clinically relevant prolongation of survival was demonstrated in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab. Immune-related adverse events were associated with response to ipilimumab, however, at the cost of considerable toxicity. SUMMARY: Evidence for an association of immune-related toxicities and response in patients receiving IL-2 or IFNα is weak, considering guarantee-time bias. On the contrary, this association for patients receiving anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy (ipilimumab) appears much stronger. Importantly, can we uncouple tumor immunity from autoimmunity in order to optimize immunotherapy in melanoma?

Adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b versus observation alone in resected stage III melanoma: final results of EORTC 18991, a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Any benefit of adjuvant interferon alfa-2b for melanoma could depend on dose and duration of treatment. Our aim was to determine whether pegylated interferon alfa-2b can facilitate prolonged exposure while maintaining tolerability. METHODS: 1256 patients with resected stage III melanoma were randomly assigned to observation (n=629) or pegylated interferon alfa-2b (n=627) 6 mug/kg per week for 8 weeks (induction) then 3 mug/kg per week (maintenance) for an intended duration of 5 years. Randomisation was stratified for microscopic (N1) versus macroscopic (N2) nodal involvement, number of positive nodes, ulceration and tumour thickness, sex, and centre. Randomisation was done with a minimisation technique. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00006249. FINDINGS: All randomised patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. 608 patients in the interferon group and 613 patients in the observation group were included in safety analyses. The median length of treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2b was 12 (IQR 3.8-33.4) months. At 3.8 (3.2-4.2) years median follow-up, 328 recurrence events had occurred in the interferon group compared with 368 in the observation group (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.96; p=0.01); the 4-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 45.6% (SE 2.2) in the interferon group and 38.9% (2.2) in the observation group. There was no difference in overall survival between the groups. Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 246 (40%) patients in the interferon group and 60 (10%) in the observation group; grade 4 adverse events occurred in 32 (5%) patients in the interferon group and 14 (2%) in the observation group. In the interferon group, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (97 patients, 16%), hepatotoxicity (66, 11%), and depression (39, 6%). Treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2b was discontinued because of toxicity in 191 (31%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant pegylated interferon alfa-2b for stage III melanoma has a significant, sustained effect on recurrence-free survival.

Integration of Translational Research in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Research (EORTC) Clinical Trial Cooperative Group Mechanisms.

The landscape for cancer research is profoundly different today from that only one decade ago. Basic science is moving rapidly and biotechnological revolutions in molecular targeting and immunology have completely modified the opportunities and concepts for cancer treatment. In contrast to the recent past where cytotoxic molecules were screened in the laboratory and then tested in early clinical studies with toxicity as endpoint instead of the often poorly defined mechanism for its potential anti-tumor effect, we now have entered the age of molecular therapeutics, rationally designed to target "strategic" checkpoints that underlie the malignant phenotype.Translational research in early clinical trials (Phase I and II) is an integral aspect of the development of the new generation of cancer drugs as it is necessary to implement radically different early phase clinical trial design and to validate new biological end-points if the full potential of these new agents is to be realized. The "proof of principle with mechanistic analysis" strategy will allow optimisation of therapy from the beginning, and provide important feedback to pre-clinical drug developers. Translational research is also essential in late (phase III) clinical trials in defining different patient populations that may benefit to differing degrees from new treatments, and thus provide further insight and refine clinical practice in a more and more patient-tailored approach. In this editorial we will discuss the integration of Translational Research in the Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).