Hyngstrom, John

9548 Background: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb trial of the tumor lysate, particle loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine was conducted to prevent recurrence in patients (pts) with resected stage III/IV melanoma. Two methods for dendritic cell (DC) harvest were used for vaccine production, including no pretreatment or pretreatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in an attempt to reduce blood draw volumes. This analysis investigates differences in clinical outcomes and RNA gene expression between these DC harvest methods for TLPLDC vaccine creation. Methods: The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) and exposing them to phagocytosis by DCs. By investigator/pt choice, pts had 120mL of blood drawn for DC harvest, or pts received 300μg of G-CSF for pre-DC mobilization and a 50-70 mL blood draw 24-48 hours later. Total vaccine production time was 72 hrs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPLDC or placebo (DCs exposed to empty YCWPs). 1-1.5 x10^6 cells/dose were injected intradermally at 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, and 18 months. Differences in disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan Meier analysis between pts who did not receive pretreatment (TLPLDC), pts who did receive pretreatment with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G), and pts receiving placebo. RNA-seq analysis was performed on the total RNA of pts’ prepared TLPLDC vaccines to assess gene expression. Relative RNA expression (RRE) was compared between TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G. Results: As previously reported, 144 pts were randomized: 103 received TLPLDC (46 TLPLDC, 57 TLPLDC+G) and 41 received placebo. There were no significant clinicopathologic or treatment differences between the three treatment arms. Survival was significantly improved in TLPLDC compared to TLPLDC+G or placebo, including 36-month OS (92.9% vs 62.8% vs 72.3% respectively, p = 0.022) and DFS (51.8% vs 23.4% vs 27.1%, p = 0.027). When compared to TLPLDC+G (n = 3) vaccine, RNA-seq from TLPLDC vaccine (n = 3) showed upregulation of genes associated with DC maturation, including HLA-DMB (RRE: 3.60), IFIT1 (3.38), CD27 (3.26), IFI44L (3.24), MX1 (2.96), HLA-DQA1 (2.67), HLA-DRA (2.40), CD49D (2.34) and CD74 (2.09), while downregulated genes were associated with DC suppression or immaturity including SERPINA1 (RRE:7.8), TLR2 (6.65), CCR1 (5.11), IL10 (4.19), CD93 (3.84) and CD14 (3.25). Conclusions: Pts receiving TLPLDC vaccine had significantly improved OS and DFS, while outcomes remained similar between those who received TLPLDC+G vs placebo. Pts who did not receive G-CSF had higher expression of genes linked to DC maturation and antigen processing and presentation, likely explaining the improvement in clinical efficacy. A phase III trial to further assess the TLPLDC vaccine to prevent recurrence is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02301611.

AbstractBackgroundCheckpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with cell‐based vaccines may produce synergistic antitumor immunity. The primary analysis of the randomized and blinded phase IIb trial in resected stage III/IV melanoma demonstrated TLPLDC is safe and improved 24‐month disease‐free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) analysis. Here, we examine efficacy within pre‐specified and exploratory subgroups.MethodsStage III/IV patients rendered disease‐free by surgery were randomized 2:1 to TLPLDC vaccine versus placebo. The pre‐specified PT analysis included only patients completing the primary vaccine/placebo series at 6 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare 24‐month DFS among subgroups.ResultsThere were no clinicopathologic differences between subgroups except stage IV patients were more likely to receive CPI. In stage IV patients, 24‐month DFS was 43% for vaccine versus 0% for placebo (p = 0.098) in the ITT analysis and 73% versus 0% (p = 0.002) in the PT analysis. There was no significant difference in 24‐month DFS when stratified by use of immunotherapy or CPI. For patients with resected recurrent disease, 24‐month DFS was 88.9% versus 33.3% (p = 0.013) in the PT analysis. All benefit from vaccination was in the PT analysis; no benefit was found in patients receiving up to three doses.ConclusionThe TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the primary vaccine series, particularly in the resected stage IV patients. The efficacy of the TLPLDC vaccine will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI versus Placebo + CPI in resected stage IV melanoma patients.

10017 Background: Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine prepared from antigens of 3 human melanoma cell lines, administered with alum. Prior formulations induced T cell and antibody responses and improved survival in a small phase II clinical trial. Part B1 of MAVIS (Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study, a three part, Phase III clinical program), was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess efficacy of seviprotimut-L, with the primary endpoint of relapse-free survival (RFS). The goal of Part B1 was to guide design of the pivotal Part B2. Methods: Patients with AJCC v7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma, after surgical resection, age 18-75, ECOG PS 0-1, were randomized 2:1 to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo, injected subcutaneously every 2 weeks x 5, then monthly x 4, then every 3 months x 9. Patients were stratified by stage (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C). Target enrollment was 325. The study was powered for assessment of RFS, with target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%. Final data are presented. Results: 347 patients were randomized. Arms were well-balanced. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) led to discontinuation in 0.4% and 0%, respectively, for vaccine and placebo arms. There were no treatment-related SAEs. By intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, RFS was not significantly longer for seviprotimut-L in the full study population but trended toward benefit (HR 0.88). Subgroup analysis based on planned stratification revealed the hazard ratio (HR) for the Stage IIB/IIC subset (randomization stratum, n=111) to be 0.65 (95% CI [0.37, 1.17]), favoring seviprotimut-L. Age can decrease immune competence: RFS was longer with vaccine for patients age <60 overall (N = 191, HR = 0.64 [0.38, 1.08]) and among Stage IIB/C patients (N = 52, HR = 0.32 [0.12, 0.86]). The effect modification interaction p value for age for stage IIB/IIC patients was 0.056. In a multivariable RFS model, for IIB/IIC patients <60 with ulceration (n=38), HR = 0.209 [0.07,0.61]. For overall survival, for patients < 60, HR = 0.41 [0.33,1.14] (n=191, 19 deaths) and for those ≥60, HR = 0.92 [0.39,2.12] (n = 156, 24 deaths). Conclusions: Seviprotimut-L is very well-tolerated. Subgroup efficacy analyses identified populations who may benefit from Seviprotimut-L: those with Stage IIB/IIC melanoma and those under age 60. These data support design of the definitive part B2 of the MAVIS phase III trial to test seviprotimut-L for stage IIB/C patients, with stratification by age and ulceration. Clinical trial information: NCT01546571.

63 Background: A novel vaccine strategy may prevent recurrence in high-risk melanoma patients (pts). The TLPLDC vaccine uses yeast cell wall particles (YCWP) to load tumor lysate into autologous dendritic cells (DC). In this phase IIb trial of TLPLDC vs. placebo in resected stage III/IV pts, TLPLDC increased 24 month (mo) disease free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) population. Here, we present a 24mo DFS subgroup analysis and estimated overall 36mo DFS. Methods: Disease-free pts were randomized 2:1 to the TLPLDC vaccine vs. unloaded YCWP+DC at 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, and 18mo. The protocol was amended to allow concurrent adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy once approved. The pre-specified PT population included only pts completing the primary vaccine/placebo series (PVS) at 6 mo. Kaplan-Meier estimates of DFS were used to compare treatment arms by stage (III or IV) and CPI therapy (yes/no) in the ITT and PT populations. Results: 144 pts were randomized (103 TLPLDC, 41 placebo); 98 pts (66 TLPLDC, 32 placebo) completed the PVS. There were no clinicopathologic differences between treatment groups. There was no difference in 24mo DFS in stage III pts (n = 112), but in stage IV pts (n = 32), the 24mo DFS was 44% vs 0% (TLPLDC vs placebo) (p = 0.41) in ITT and 73.3% vs. 0% (HR 0.14, p = 0.002) in PT. Stage IV pts were more likely to receive CPI than stage III pts (50% vs. 30%, p = 0.003). There was no difference in 24mo DFS for pts who did not receive CPI (n = 102), but in pts who received CPI (n = 42), the 24mo DFS was 49.3% vs. 31.3% (p = 0.71) in ITT and 68.8% vs. 41.7% (HR 0.46, p = 0.28) in PT, showing a trend toward improved DFS in pts who completed the PVS and received CPI (n = 31). Overall, the 36mo estimated DFS was 34.2% vs. 21.6% (p = 0.89) for ITT and 56.9% vs. 27.9% (p = 0.021) for PT. Conclusions: The TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the PVS at 24 and 36 mos, particularly in the resected stage IV subset. The apparent synergistic effect with TLPLDC + CPI will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI vs. CPI alone in resected stage IV melanoma pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02301611.