Overall survival from tebentafusp versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in first-line metastatic uveal melanoma: a propensity score-weighted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp demonstrated a superior overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51] compared to investigator's choice (82% pembrolizumab) in a randomized, phase III trial (IMCgp100-202; N = 378) in untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). The 1-year OS rates for tebentafusp and pembrolizumab were 73% and 59%, respectively. In the single-arm GEM1402 (N = 52), the 1-year OS rate for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) in mUM was 52%. Due to limitations in conducting randomized trials in mUM, we compared OS on tebentafusp or pembrolizumab (IMCgp100-202) to N+I (GEM1402) in untreated mUM using propensity scoring methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analyses were adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), balancing age, sex, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline alkaline phosphatase, disease location, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and time from primary diagnosis to metastasis. OS was assessed using IPT-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses using alternative missing data and weights methods were conducted. RESULTS: The primary IPTW analysis included 240 of 252 patients randomized to tebentafusp from IMCgp100-202 and 45 of 52 N+I-treated patients from GEM-1402. Key baseline covariates, including LDH, were generally well balanced before weighting. The IPTW-adjusted OS favored tebentafusp, HR 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.78]; 1-year OS was 73% for tebentafusp versus 50% for N+I. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent superior OS for tebentafusp with all IPTW HRs ≤0.61. IPTW analysis of pembrolizumab versus N+I showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Tebentafusp was previously shown to provide an OS benefit compared to checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy in untreated mUM. Propensity score analysis demonstrated a similar OS benefit for tebentafusp compared with N+I. These data further support tebentafusp as the standard of care in previously untreated human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A∗02:01+ adult patients with mUM.

Neuro-ophthalmic side effects of molecularly targeted cancer drugs.

The past two decades has been an amazing time in the advancement of cancer treatment. Molecularly targeted therapy is a concept in which specific cellular molecules (overexpressed, mutationally activated, or selectively expressed proteins) are manipulated in an advantageous manner to decrease the transformation, proliferation, and/or survival of cancer cells. In addition, increased knowledge of the role of the immune system in carcinogenesis has led to the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors to restore and enhance cellular-mediated antitumor immunity. The United States Food and Drug Administration approval of the chimeric monoclonal antibody (mAb) rituximab in 1997 for the treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma ushered in a new era of targeted therapy for cancer. A year later, trastuzumab, a humanized mAb, was approved for patients with breast cancer. In 2001, imatinib was the first small-molecule kinase inhibitor approved. The approval of ipilimumab-the first in class immune checkpoint inhibitor-in 2011 serves as a landmark period of time in the resurgence of immunotherapy for cancer. Despite the notion that increased tumor specificity results in decreased complications, toxicity remains a major hurdle in the development and implementation of many of the targeted anticancer drugs. This article will provide an overview of the current cellular and immunological understanding of cancer pathogenesis-the foundation upon which molecularly targeted therapies were developed-and a description of the ocular and neuro-ophthalmic toxicity profile of mAbs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and small-molecule kinase inhibitors.

Next steps in immuno-oncology: enhancing antitumor effects through appropriate patient selection and rationally designed combination strategies.

Background: Cancers escape immune surveillance via distinct mechanisms that involve central (negative selection within the thymus) or peripheral (lack of costimulation, receipt of death/anergic signals by tumor, immunoregulatory cell populations) immune tolerance. During the 1990s, moderate clinical benefit was seen using several cytokine therapies for a limited number of cancers. Over the past 20 years, extensive research has been performed to understand the role of various components of peripheral immune tolerance, with the co-inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed death 1 (PD-1), and its ligand (PD-L1) being the most well-characterized at preclinical and clinical levels. Patients and methods: We used PubMed and Google Scholar searches to identify key articles published reporting preclinical and clinical studies investigating CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1, frequently cited review articles, and clinical studies of CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 pathway inhibitors, including combination therapy strategies. We also searched recent oncology congress presentations and clinicaltrials.gov to cover the most up-to-date clinical trial data and ongoing clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations. Results: Inhibiting CTLA-4 and PD-1 using monoclonal antibody therapies administered as single agents has been associated with clinical benefit in distinct patient subgroups across several malignancies. Concurrent blockade of CTLA-4 and components of the PD-1/PD-L1 system using various schedules has shown synergy and even higher incidence of durable antitumor responses at the expense of increased rates of immune-mediated adverse events, which can be life-threatening, but are rarely fatal and are reversible in most cases using established treatment guidelines. Conclusions: Dual immune checkpoint blockade has demonstrated promising clinical benefit in numerous solid tumor types. This example of concurrent modulation of multiple components of the immune system is currently being investigated in other cancers using various immunomodulatory strategies.