Milhem, Mohammed M

Purpose. There are no known effective medical treatments for refractory MPNST. Inactivation of the NF1 tumor suppressor in MPNST results in upregulation of mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) signaling and angiogenesis, which contributes to disease progression. We conducted a phase II study for patients (pts) with refractory MPNST combining everolimus (10 mg PO once daily) with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) to determine the clinical benefit rate (CBR) (complete response, partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months). Patients and Methods. Patients ≥18 years old with chemotherapy refractory sporadic or NF1 MPNST were eligible. Tumor response was assessed after every 2 cycles (the WHO criteria). A two-stage design targeting a 25% CBR was used: if ≥ 1/15 pts in stage 1 responded, enrollment would be expanded by 10 pts, and if ≥ 4/25 patients had clinical benefit, the combination would be considered active. Results. Twenty-five pts, 17 with NF1 and 8 with sporadic MPNST, enrolled. One of 15 pts in stage 1 had clinical benefit. Of 10 additional pts enrolled, 2 had clinical benefit. The median number of completed cycles was 3 (range 1–16). Adverse events were similar to those known for this combination. Conclusion. With a CBR of 12% (3/25), the combination of everolimus and bevacizumab did not reach the study’s target response rate and is not considered active in refractory MPNST.

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10 6 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10 8 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.