Blank, Christian U.

Abstract Purpose: AXL, a receptor tyrosine kinase related to oncogenic processes, is aberrantly expressed in various cancers and associated with treatment resistance. Enapotamab vedotin (EnaV), a novel anti-AXL human IgG1 and monomethyl auristatin E antibody–drug conjugate, demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical models, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase 1/2 study assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of EnaV in solid tumors. Patients and Methods: This study comprised dose-escalation and dose-expansion phases; both phases investigated EnaV once every 3 weeks (Q3W) and EnaV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (3Q4W). Primary objectives determined the maximum tolerated dose (dose escalation) and safety (dose expansion). Pharmacokinetic profile, antitumor activity, and AXL expression were also assessed. Results: During dose escalation, 32 patients received EnaV Q3W; 15 received EnaV 3Q4W. The maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose were 2.2 mg/kg in Q3W and 1.0 mg/kg in 3Q4W schedules. In dose expansion, 189 patients received EnaV Q3W; 70 received EnaV 3Q4W. Common adverse events in dose expansion included fatigue, constipation, nausea, decreased appetite, and diarrhea. Overall response rates ranged from 4.5% to 12.5% with Q3W dose schedule and from 9.1% to 11.5% with 3Q4W dose schedule. Disease control rates for NSCLC cohorts were 40.9% to 50.0%. NSCLC subset analysis demonstrated correlation between radiomics signature and disease control. The relationship between clinical activity and AXL expression was not apparent. Conclusions: EnaV had an acceptable safety profile; however, because the evaluation of antitumor activity did not show clinically meaningful responses, clinical development of EnaV was discontinued. Significance: EnaV, an anti-AXL human IgG1 and monomethyl auristatin E antibody–drug conjugate, showed single-agent antitumor activity in preclinical models. This phase 1/2 study of EnaV demonstrated a manageable safety profile and antitumor activity in selected tumor types. Further studies exploring alternative targeting modalities, patient selection, and/or combinations are needed.

AbstractPredicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population‐based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti‐PD‐1‐based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal–external cross‐validation. Included patients received anti‐PD‐1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence—all at start of ICI—, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in‐transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over‐optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64–0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%–81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression‐free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis.

AbstractSince the introduction of BRAF(/MEK) inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), the prognosis of advanced melanoma has greatly improved. Melanoma is known for its remarkably long time to first distant recurrence (TFDR), which can be decades in some patients and is partly attributed to immune‐surveillance. We investigated the relationship between TFDR and patient outcomes after systemic treatment for advanced melanoma. We selected patients undergoing first‐line systemic therapy for advanced melanoma from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The association between TFDR and progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by Cox proportional hazard regression models. The TFDR was modeled categorically, linearly, and flexibly using restricted cubic splines. Patients received anti‐PD‐1‐based treatment (n = 1844) or BRAF(/MEK) inhibition (n = 1618). For ICI‐treated patients with a TFDR <2 years, median OS was 25.0 months, compared to 37.3 months for a TFDR >5 years (P = .014). Patients treated with BRAF(/MEK) inhibition with a longer TFDR also had a significantly longer median OS (8.6 months for TFDR <2 years compared to 11.1 months for >5 years, P = .004). The hazard of dying rapidly decreased with increasing TFDR until approximately 5 years (HR 0.87), after which the hazard of dying further decreased with increasing TFDR, but less strongly (HR 0.82 for a TFDR of 10 years and HR 0.79 for a TFDR of 15 years). Results were similar when stratifying for type of treatment. Advanced melanoma patients with longer TFDR have a prolonged PFS and OS, irrespective of being treated with first‐line ICI or targeted therapy.

This Phase Ib study combined programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, atezolizumab, with other immunomodulatory agents in locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. Arms B-D evaluated atezolizumab plus interferon-α, with/without vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, bevacizumab, in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and other solid tumors. Arm B predominantly recruited patients with previously treated RCC or melanoma to receive atezolizumab plus interferon α-2b. Arm C investigated atezolizumab plus polyethylene glycol (PEG)-interferon α-2a in previously treated RCC. Arm D evaluated atezolizumab plus PEG-interferon α-2a and bevacizumab. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included clinical activity. Combination therapy was well tolerated, with safety profiles consistent with known risks of individual agents. The most frequent treatment-related toxicities were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The objective response rate (ORR) in arm B was 20.0% overall and 17.8% in patients with previously treated checkpoint inhibitor–naive RCC (n = 45). No responses were reported in arm C. The highest ORR in arm D was 46.7% in patients with treatment-naive RCC (n = 15). Data showed preliminary clinical activity and acceptable tolerability of atezolizumab plus interferon α-2b in patients with previously treated checkpoint inhibitor–naive RCC and of atezolizumab plus PEG-interferon α-2a and bevacizumab in patients with treatment-naive RCC.