Luke, Jason J

Abstract The field of oncology has been transformed by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and other immune-based agents; however, many patients do not receive a durable benefit. While biomarker assessments from pivotal ICI trials have uncovered certain mechanisms of resistance, results thus far have only scraped the surface. Mechanisms of resistance are as complex as the tumor microenvironment (TME) itself, and the development of effective therapeutic strategies will only be possible by building accurate models of the tumor-immune interface. With advancement of multi-omic technologies, high-resolution characterization of the TME is now possible. In addition to sequencing of bulk tumor, single-cell transcriptomic, proteomic, and epigenomic data as well as T-cell receptor profiling can now be simultaneously measured and compared between responders and nonresponders to ICI. Spatial sequencing and imaging platforms have further expanded the dimensionality of existing technologies. Rapid advancements in computation and data sharing strategies enable development of biologically interpretable machine learning models to integrate data from high-resolution, multi-omic platforms. These models catalyze the identification of resistance mechanisms and predictors of benefit in ICI-treated patients, providing scientific foundation for novel clinical trials. Moving forward, we propose a framework by which in silico screening, functional validation, and clinical trial biomarker assessment can be used for the advancement of combined immunotherapy strategies.

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.

Background This phase I multicenter study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and translational effects on the tumor microenvironment of itacitinib (Janus-associated kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor) in combination with epacadostat (indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) inhibitor) or parsaclisib (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ (PI3Kδ) inhibitor). Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were enrolled and received itacitinib (100–400 mg once a day) plus epacadostat (50–300 mg two times per day; group A), or itacitinib (100–400 mg once a day) plus parsaclisib or parsaclisib monotherapy (0.3–10 mg once a day; group B). Results A total of 142 patients were enrolled in the study. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached for either the combination of itacitinib plus epacadostat (n=47) or itacitinib plus parsaclisib (n=90). One dose-limiting toxicity of serious, grade 3 aseptic meningitis was reported in a patient receiving itacitinib 300 mg once a day plus parsaclisib 10 mg once a day, which resolved when the study drugs were withdrawn. The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with itacitinib plus epacadostat included fatigue, nausea, pyrexia, and vomiting, and for patients treated with itacitinib plus parsaclisib were fatigue, pyrexia, and diarrhea. In the itacitinib plus epacadostat group, no patient had an objective response. Among patients receiving itacitinib 100 mg once a day plus parsaclisib 0.3 mg once a day, three achieved partial response for an objective response rate (95% CI) of 7.1% (1.50 to 19.48). Treatment with itacitinib plus epacadostat demonstrated some increase in tumor CD8+ T cell infiltration and minor changes in six plasma proteins, whereas treatment with itacitinib plus high-dose parsaclisib resulted in downregulation of 20 plasma proteins mostly involved in immune cell function, with no observed change in intratumoral CD8+ T cell infiltration. Conclusion Adverse events with JAK1 inhibition combined with either IDO1 or PI3Kδ inhibition were manageable, but the combinations demonstrated limited clinical activity or enhancement of immune activation in the tumor microenvironment. Trial registration number NCT02559492.

Uveal melanoma is a rare form of melanoma with particularly poor outcomes in the metastatic setting. In contrast with cutaneous melanoma, uveal melanoma lacks BRAF mutations and demonstrates very low response rates to immune-checkpoint blockade. Our objectives were to study the transcriptomics of metastatic uveal melanoma with the intent of assessing gene pathways and potential molecular characteristics that might be nominated for further exploration as therapeutic targets. We initially analyzed transcriptional data from The Cancer Genome Atlas suggesting PI3K/mTOR and glycolysis as well as IL6 associating with poor survival. From tumor samples collected in a prospective phase II trial (A091201), we performed a transcriptional analysis of human metastatic uveal melanoma observing a novel role for epithelial-mesenchymal transition associating with survival. Specifically, we nominate and describe initial functional validation of neuropillin-1 from uveal melanoma cells as associated with poor survival and as a mediator of proliferation and migration for uveal melanoma in vitro. These results immediately nominate potential next steps in clinical research for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

Abstract Purpose: The surface receptor MET is highly expressed on primary uveal melanoma; MET inhibitors demonstrated early clinical signals of efficacy in slowing uveal melanoma growth. The primary objective of our study was to compare the progression-free survival rate at 4 months (PFS4) of patients with uveal melanoma treated with cabozantinib or chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and RECIST measurable disease were randomized 2:1 to receive either cabozantinib (arm 1) versus temozolomide or dacarbazine (arm 2) with restaging imaging every two cycles. Cross-over from arm 2 to cabozantinib after progression was allowed (arm 2X). Available tumor specimens were analyzed by whole-exome sequencing (WES) and results were correlated with outcome. Results: Forty-six eligible patients were accrued with 31, 15, and 9 in arms 1, 2, and 2X, respectively. Median lines of prior therapy, including hepatic embolization, were two. Rates of PFS4 in arm 1 and arm 2 were 32.3% and 26.7% (P = 0.35), respectively, with median PFS time of 60 and 59 days (P = 0.964; HR = 0.99). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.4 months and 7.3 months (P = 0.580; HR = 1.21), respectively. Grade 3–4 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were present in 61.3%, 46.7%, and 37.5% in arms 1, 2, and 2X, respectively. WES demonstrated a mean tumor mutational burden of 1.53 mutations/Mb and did not separate OS ≤ or >1 year (P = 0.14). Known mutations were identified by WES and novel mutations were nominated. Conclusions: MET/VEGFR blockade with cabozantinib demonstrated no improvement in PFS but an increase in toxicity relative to temozolomide/dacarbazine in metastatic uveal melanoma.

Abstract Anti–PD-1 therapy has improved clinical outcomes in advanced melanoma, but most patients experience intrinsic resistance. Responding patients can develop acquired resistance to anti–PD-1. We retrospectively reviewed 488 patients treated with anti–PD-1 from three academic centers and identified 36 patients with acquired resistance, defined as disease progression following objective response. The incidence, timing, disease sites, post-progression survival (PPS), and outcomes were evaluated descriptively. The acquired resistance cohort consisted of 67% with more than 1 feature of poor prognosis (stage M1c, elevated LDH, or brain metastasis), and 67% had previously received ipilimumab. Partial and complete responses were achieved in 89% (n = 32) and 11% (n = 4) of patients, respectively, and median time to resistance (progression-free survival; PFS) was 11.1 months (range 4.3–32.8 months). Most progression was isolated (78% of patients, n = 28) and occurred while receiving therapy (78%, n = 28). The median PPS was 12.8 months (range 0.1–51.8 months), and the median overall survival was 33.7 months. Among isolated progressors, 15 received localized therapy (12 with surgery, 3 with radiation). Patients with isolated versus systemic progression exhibited a trend for improved PPS (P = 0.081), and patients with an initial PFS ≥ 15 months showed significant PPS improvement (P = 0.036). Two patients experienced subsequent responses to anti–PD-1 resumption. In conclusion, acquired resistance to anti–PD-1 was frequently associated with excellent clinical outcomes and often presented as isolated progression amenable to localized therapy (surgery or radiation) or systemic progression sensitive to therapy resumption. Cancer Immunol Res; 5(5); 357–62. ©2017 AACR.