Davar, Diwakar

PURPOSE Continued improvement in outcomes is needed for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Methods Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (800 mg IV once every 2 weeks) plus cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 IV once every 2 weeks) versus avelumab alone once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. Cetuximab was given for 1 year in the avelumab + cetuximab arm. Crossover at progression to avelumab + cetuximab was allowed. Randomization was 1:1, stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. Patients had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, were anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody–naive, had no previous cetuximab in the advanced setting, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and could be HIV+ (CD4 >200, viral load <200). Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; null hypothesis: median = 12 months v alternative hypothesis: 21 months or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha .2, n = 57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rates (ORRs), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled; 57 patients were evaluable. The median age was 72 years, all were HIV–; 75.4% was PD-L1+, 84.2% had head/neck origin, 47.4% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab (median, 11.1 [7.6-not reached (NR)] v 3.0 months [2.7-13.6] hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.97], P = .018). Avelumab patients who crossed over (n = 9) to combination had a median PFS after crossover of 11.3 months (5.8-NR). The confirmed ORR was 27.6% with avelumab + cetuximab and 21.4% with avelumab. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48.3% and 21.5% of patients with avelumab + cetuximab (most common: rash [20.7%], infusion reaction [20.7%]) and avelumab, respectively. CONCLUSION Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab alone in patients with advanced cSCC. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with the combination of cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade.

3553 Background: Vilastobart (XTX101) is tumor-activated, high affinity, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4 designed to focus activity toward the tumor and minimize systemic adverse events. Fc-enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC) and other tumors [Fakih ASCO GI 2025]. Vilastobart was generally well-tolerated and demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity in pts with immunologically “cold” advanced solid tumors, both as a monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab [Davar SITC 2024]. Methods: Phase 2 of the NCT04896697 study evaluated the initial recommended Phase 2 dose of vilastobart 100 mg Q6W in combination with atezolizumab 1200 mg Q3W in pts with MSS CRC who had at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting, excluding pts with prior immune checkpoint inhibitors. Pts with (LM) and without liver metastasis (NLM) were eligible. Tumor biopsies were obtained before and during treatment for translational analyses. Results: As of January 13, 2025, 40 pts were dosed in Phase 2. Median age was 55 (25-82) and 70% of pts had 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Of the 24 enrolled NLM pts, 11 were response-evaluable with an available on-treatment scan as of the data cut. In these 11 pts, two confirmed and one unconfirmed partial response (PR) were reported, all accompanied by significant decreases in ctDNA and serum tumor marker CEA and with each pt ongoing on therapy, for a preliminary ORR of 27%. One additional pt (with peritoneal metastasis) had a 24% reduction in target lesions (first scan) and was ongoing on therapy. Of the 16 enrolled LM pts, 7 were response evaluable, with one stable disease and another pt reporting a mixed response with significant serum tumor marker reductions, both ongoing on therapy. Of note, one LM pt in Phase 1C dose escalation treated with vilastobart (150 mg Q6W) combination had a confirmed PR with LM resolution. Six pts (15%) reported G3+ treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with two G4 laboratory TRAEs and no G5 TRAEs. Only three pts discontinued therapy for TRAEs. TRAEs occurring in ≥10% (all grade) or ≥5% (G3) of pts are summarized in the Table. Conclusions: The combination of vilastobart, a novel tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced a-CTLA-4, and atezolizumab demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in late line, metastatic MSS CRC where immune checkpoint blockade has historically been relatively ineffective. Vilastobart was observed to have a differentiated safety profile distinct from systemically active a-CTLA-4, consistent with tumor-selective activation. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 . AE term All Graden (%) Grade 3n (%) Fatigue 12 (30%) 0 Diarrhea 8 (20%) 0 Infusion related reactions 5 (13%) 0 Pyrexia 4 (10%) 0 ALT increased 4 (10%) 0 AST increased 4 (10%) 1 (3%) Colitis 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

TPS9607 Background: The majority of 100,000 annual new U.S. cases of mel consist of localized early-stage disease that undergo wide local excision (WLE) +/- SLN biopsy (SLNB). The tumor draining lymph node is the initial site of immune response including formation of tumor mediated immune suppression and pre-metastatic niches. SLN positivity is a key prognostic factor in early stage mel. Thus, the SLN is a target for local immune intervention to boost the antitumor response. Vusolimogene oderparepvec (RP1) is an intratumorally administered oncolytic immunotherapy with unique potential for neo-adjuvant therapeutic application. RP1 is constructed from a high potency HSV1 strain (RH018A) modified to replicate selectively in tumors (deletion of neurovirulence factors ICP34.5 and ICP47). RP1 encodes GM-CSF and a fusogenic GALV-GP R- protein to maximize oncolytic potency and induce immunogenic cell death. Preclinical and clinical data demonstrate robust antitumor efficacy (including non-injected lesions) of RP1 alone and in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in advanced mel. This trial addresses a crucial gap in understanding the impact of RP1 on SLN dynamics and preventing disease recurrence in high-risk patients (pts). We hypothesize that in pts with high risk, clinically node negative mel (pT3b-T4b), RP1 will reduce rates of SLN positivity as compared to a historic control by favorably reshaping the immune landscape of the primary tumor, SLN, and the peripheral blood. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated, single arm phase 1/2 trial (NCT06216938) designed to assess efficacy and safety of neo-adjuvant RP1 in high-risk, clinically node-negative, non-uveal mel. Eligibility criteria: pT3b, T4a, or T4b non-uveal mel with visible residual tumor or positive biopsy margins, ECOG ≤1, and no prior oncolytic virus therapy. Pts receive 3 doses of neo-adjuvant RP1 (10e6 PFU day 1, 10e7 PFU on days 15 and 21), injected at the primary tumor site followed by standard WLE and SLNB within 35 days of dose 1. Biopsy of residual tumor or archival tumor tissue is obtained pre-RP1 and archival tissue from WLE and SLNB is obtained post-RP1. Blood samples are obtained with each RP1 dose and 3 months post-therapy. Pts are followed for 3 years. Primary endpoint: rate of SLN positivity in the overall cohort. Secondary endpoints: treatment related adverse events (per CTCAE), recurrence free survival, and overall survival. Exploratory endpoints: immunophenotype and microenvironment of the primary tumor, SLN and peripheral blood pre- and post- RP1 (via IHC, IF, and flow cytometry). The observed rate of SLN positivity will be compared to the predicted rate (Melanoma Institute of Australia Prediction Tool for SLN metastatic risk) with a one-sided, one-sample proportion test. Kaplan-Meier estimates will be provided for survival endpoints. The trial is active with 13 of 25 pts enrolled in January 2025. Clinical trial information: NCT06216938 .

206 Background: XTX101 is an investigational tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced, high affinity binding aCTLA-4 designed to block CTLA-4 and deplete regulatory T cells upon activation in the tumor by proteases. XTX101 also contains mutations designed to enhance Fcγ receptor binding. Fc enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with “cold tumors”, including microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC). Parts 1A/1B of the study evaluated XTX101 monotherapy in pts with advanced solid tumors. XTX101 was generally well tolerated with limited peripheral XTX101 activation (~13%) compared to evidence of XTX101 activation in the tumor microenvironment (73-96%, in n=2 on-treatment tumor biopsies). A durable partial response (PR) and resolution of hepatic metastases was observed in a pt with PD-L1 negative NSCLC at the monotherapy recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 150 mg once every six weeks (Q6W) [1]. Methods: Part 1C evaluated the safety and feasibility of XTX101 in combination with atezolizumab in pts with advanced solid tumors using 3+3 dose escalation to establish the RP2D. Phase 2 is enrolling pts with MSS CRC with at least 1 prior regimen for metastatic CRC. Initial safety and anti-tumor activity data from Phase 2 in ~20 pts will be presented. Results: As of July 15, 2024, 15 pts were enrolled in Part 1C: MSS CRC (n=12), esophageal cancer, NSCLC, and ampullary carcinoma (n=1 each). Median age 69 and 3 prior lines of therapy (1-12). Across all XTX101 dose levels (75 mg to 150 mg), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade with >10% incidence included infusion reactions (n=4), fatigue and diarrhea (n=2 each), no G4 or G5 TRAEs were reported. In Part 1C, 2 pts experienced a dose limiting toxicity: 1 pt had G3 colitis, and 1 pt had G3 liver enzyme elevation (both were at the XTX101 150 mg dose level and resolved with immunosuppression). Two unconfirmed PRs were reported: in a pt with MSS CRC, including resolution of a liver target lesion, and in a pt with ampullary carcinoma (accompanied by a Ca 19-9 decrease from 700 to 41). In addition, a decrease in intra-tumoral Tregs was observed in paired tumor biopsies from a pt. The combination RP2D was established as XTX101 100 mg Q6W and atezolizumab 1200 mg once every three weeks (Q3W), and enrollment in the Phase 2 part of the study for pts with MSS CRC is ongoing at the RP2D. Conclusions: In Part 1C dose escalation, the combination of XTX101, a tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4, and atezolizumab was generally well tolerated in pts with advanced solid tumors and demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in cold tumors. These data support the initiation of an ongoing Phase 2 study evaluating the combination in pts with MSS CRC with and without liver metastases. 1. Davar ESMO IO 2023. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 .

Background MEDI5395 is a recombinant attenuated Newcastle disease virus engineered to express a human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor transgene. Preclinically, MEDI5395 demonstrated broad oncolytic activity, augmented by concomitant programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) axis blockade. Durvalumab is an anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for the treatment of various solid tumors. We describe the results of the first-in-human study combining intravenous MEDI5395 with durvalumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods This phase I, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation, dose-expansion study recruited adult patients with advanced solid tumors, who had relapsed or were refractory or intolerant to ≥1 prior line of standard treatment. MEDI5395 was administered intravenously as six doses over 15–18 days. The dose-escalation phase assessed four-dose levels (108, 109, 1010, 1011 focus forming units (FFU)) of MEDI5395, with sequential or delayed durvalumab. Durvalumab 1500 mg was administered intravenously every 4 weeks up to 2 years. The dose-expansion phase was not initiated. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the dose and schedule of MEDI5395 plus durvalumab administration. Secondary objectives included the assessment of the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of MEDI5395. Results 39 patients were treated with MEDI5395; 36 patients also received durvalumab. All 39 patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), most commonly fatigue (61.5%), nausea (53.8%) and chills (51.3%). Grade 3–4 TEAEs occurred in 27 (69.2%) patients; these were deemed MEDI5395-related in 12 (30.8%) patients. Two patients experienced a DLT, and the maximum tolerated dose of MEDI5395 with sequential and delayed durvalumab at study termination was 1011 and 1010 FFU, respectively. Four patients (10.3%) achieved a partial response (PR). Patients with PR or stable disease tended to have higher baseline PD-L1 and CD8+ levels in their tumor tissue. A tendency to dose-dependent pharmacokinetics of the viral genome was observed in whole blood and a tendency to dose-dependent viral shedding was observed in saliva and urine. Neutralizing antibodies were observed in all patients but did not appear to impact efficacy negatively. Conclusion This study demonstrates the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of MEDI5395 with durvalumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Trial registration number NCT03889275

Acral melanoma (AM) has distinct characteristics as compared with cutaneous melanoma and exhibits poor response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Tumor-intrinsic mechanisms of immune exclusion have been identified in many cancers but less studied in AM. We characterized clinically annotated tumors from patients diagnosed with AM at our institution in correlation with ICI response using whole transcriptome RNAseq, whole exome sequencing, CD8 immunohistochemistry, and multispectral immunofluorescence imaging. A defined interferon-γ-associated T cell-inflamed gene signature was used to categorize tumors into non-T cell-inflamed and T cell-inflamed phenotypes. In combination with AM tumors from two published studies, we systematically assessed the immune landscape of AM and detected differential gene expression and pathway activation in a non-T cell-inflamed tumor microenvironment (TME). Two single-cell(sc) RNAseq AM cohorts and 11 bulk RNAseq cohorts of various tumor types were used for independent validation on pathways associated with lack of ICI response. In total, 892 specimens were included in this study. 72.5% of AM tumors showed low expression of the T cell-inflamed gene signature, with 23.9% of total tumors categorized as the non-T cell-inflamed phenotype. Patients of low CD3 + CD8 + PD1 + intratumoral T cell density showed poor prognosis. We identified 11 oncogenic pathways significantly upregulated in non-T cell-inflamed relative to T cell-inflamed TME shared across all three acral cohorts (MYC, HGF, MITF, VEGF, EGFR, SP1, ERBB2, TFEB, SREBF1, SOX2, and CCND1). scRNAseq analysis revealed that tumor cell-expressing pathway scores were significantly higher in low versus high T cell-infiltrated AM tumors. We further demonstrated that the 11 pathways were enriched in ICI non-responders compared with responders across cancers, including AM, cutaneous melanoma, triple-negative breast cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer. Pathway activation was associated with low expression of interferon stimulated genes, suggesting suppression of antigen presentation. Across the 11 pathways, fatty acid synthase and CXCL8 were unifying downstream target molecules suggesting potential nodes for therapeutic intervention. A unique set of pathways is associated with immune exclusion and ICI resistance in AM. These data may inform immunotherapy combinations for immediate clinical translation.

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 several are FDA-approved. Although not yet approved, neoadjuvant ICIs have also shown to improve event-free survival and remains an ongoing area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma, bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, and lifileucel, an autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, for unresectable or metastatic 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 BRAF V600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Abstract Background: T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domain (TIGIT) is an inhibitory immune checkpoint receptor expressed on subsets of T-cells and natural killer (NK) cells. TIGIT inhibits T and NK cell function by binding to CD155 and CD112. SEA-TGT is an investigational human, nonfucosylated monoclonal antibody directed against TIGIT, blocking TIGIT's interaction with CD155 and CD112. SGNTGT-001 (NCT04254107) is a phase 1, open-label, multicenter study of SEA-TGT in patients (pts) with advanced malignancies (solid tumors and lymphomas). In this abstract, we present data from the dose-escalation phase (Part A). Methods: Pts received SEA-TGT ranging from 0.01 to 6.0 mg/kg of body weight intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SEA-TGT and identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the recommended dose and schedule of SEA-TGT. The optimal biological dose was defined using the Clinical Utility Index. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity. Antitumor activity was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 or the Lugano classification criteria with Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria. Results: From June 12, 2020, to October 5, 2022, 41 pts were enrolled (2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 7 pts in the 0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, and 6 mg/kg cohorts, respectively). Among the 39 pts who were treated 23 pts had solid tumors and 16 had lymphomas. The median number of prior therapies across all cohorts was 5. Treatment emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in 100% of pts, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade were reported in 69.2%. TRAEs seen in ≥10% of the pts were infusion-related reaction (38.5%), chills (25.6%), pyrexia (17.9%), fatigue (12.8%), maculopapular rash (12.8%), and rash (10.3%). Seven pts (17.9%) reported TRAEs grade ≥3, and rash (5.1%) was the most frequently reported. No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs were reported. One dose-limiting toxicity, pruritic rash, was observed in 1 pt in the 6 mg/kg cohort, and MTD was not exceeded. Based on the PK and pharmacodynamic data, 1 mg/kg Q3W was selected as the optimal biological dose for the expansion cohorts. One partial response was observed in a pt with gastric cancer, and 2 partial metabolic responses were seen in a pt with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and a pt with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Conclusions: Overall, clinical data for SEA-TGT from the SGNTGT-001 trial suggest a manageable and tolerable safety profile. Preliminary antitumor activity warrants further clinical evaluation of SEA-TGT. SGNTGT-001 is ongoing and evaluating monotherapy and combination therapies. Citation Format: Elena Garralda Cabanas, Elisa Fontana, Honey Kumar Oberoi, Nataliya V. Uboha, Ecaterina E. Dumbrava, Emiliano Calvo, Giuseppe Curigliano, Diwakar Davar, Bridget K. Keenan, Vincent K. Lam, Sudhir Manda, Amitkuma Mehta, Anna Minchom, Alison Moskowitz, Ravi Paluri, Vincent Ribrag, Donald Richards, Lillian Siu, Paul Swiecicki, Trisha Wise-Draper, Jasmine Zain, Andres Forero-Torres, Ping Xu, Stephen Ansell. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of SGN-TGT monotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT265.