Hauschild, Axel

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus ipilimumab has demonstrated greater antitumor activity versus ipilimumab alone, without additional toxicity, in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year outcomes from a randomized phase II study. These data provide the longest efficacy and safety follow-up for patients with melanoma treated with a combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor. Eligible patients with unresectable stage IIIB‒IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. T-VEC was administered intralesionally at 10 6 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL in week 1, followed by 10 8 PFU/mL in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤4 doses) was administered intravenously starting at week 1 in the ipilimumab arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per immune-related response criteria; key secondary end points included durable response rate (DRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Overall, 198 patients were randomized to receive the combination (n=98) or ipilimumab (n=100). The combination improved the ORR versus ipilimumab (35.7% vs 16.0%; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7; p=0.003). DRR was 33.7% and 13.0% (unadjusted OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.0; descriptive p=0.001), respectively. Among the objective responders, the median DOR was 69.2 months (95% CI 38.5 to not estimable) with the combination and was not reached with ipilimumab. Median PFS was 13.5 months with the combination and 6.4 months with ipilimumab (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09; descriptive p=0.14). Estimated 5-year OS was 54.7% (95% CI 43.9 to 64.2) in the combination arm and 48.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 58.1) in the ipilimumab arm. Forty-seven (48.0%) and 65 (65.0%) patients in the combination and ipilimumab arms, respectively, received subsequent therapies. No new safety signals were reported. At the 5-year follow-up, the improved response rates observed with T-VEC plus ipilimumab were durable. This is the first randomized controlled study of the combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor that meets its primary end point.Trial registration number: NCT01740297 .

Abstract Background: Cemiplimab is the first treatment approved in the US (as cemiplimab-rwlc) for patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) or locally advanced disease (laBCC) after hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) treatment or for whom an HHI is not appropriate. Cemiplimab provided substantial clinical benefit and an acceptable safety profile in patients with laBCC who discontinued HHI therapy due to progressive disease (PD), intolerance, or no better than stable disease (SD) after 9 months (NCT03132636). Here, we present the primary analysis of the mBCC cohort. Methods: Patients with mBCC (nodal or distant) post-HHI treatment received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 93 weeks or until PD. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR). Key secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability, ORR per investigator (INV) assessment, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and complete response (CR) rate (data cutoff date: May 20, 2021). Results: Fifty-four patients were enrolled (70.4% male; median age 63.5 years [range, 38−90]; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 [66.7%] and 1 [33.3%]). Median duration of follow-up was 8.4 months (range 1.5-36.2). ORR per ICR was 24.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.5-37.6); with 1 CR and 12 partial responses (PRs). ORR per INV was 25.9% (95% CI, 15.0-39.7), with 2 CRs and 12 PRs. Among responders, median time to response per ICR was 4.0 months (range, 2.0−10.5). Estimated median DOR per ICR was 16.7 months (95% CI, 9.8-not evaluable). Disease control rate was 63.0% (95% CI, 48.7-75.7) per ICR and 70.4% (95% CI, 56.4-82.0) per INV. Median OS was not reached. Median PFS per ICR was 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.2-15.9). The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (37.0%), diarrhea (14.8%), pruritus (13.0%), hyperthyroidism (9.3%), and arthralgia (9.3%) as well as hypothyroidism, asthenia, constipation, and maculo-papular rash (7.4% each). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Cemiplimab provided clinically meaningful antitumor activity, including durable responses, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with mBCC who had progressed on or were intolerant to HHI therapy. Citation Format: Karl Lewis, Ketty Peris, Aleksander Sekulic, Alexander J. Stratigos, Lara Dunn, Zeynep Eroglu, Anne Lynn S. Chang, Michael R. Migden, Suk-Young Yoo, Kosalai Mohan, Ebony Coates, Emmanuel Okoye, Timothy Bowler, Jean-François Baurain, Oliver Bechter, Axel Hauschild, Marcus O. Butler, Leonel Hernandez-Aya, Lisa Licitra, Rogerio I. Neves, Emily S. Ruiz, Frank Seebach, David M. Weinreich, George D. Yancopoulos, Israel Lowy, Priscila Goncalves, Matthew G. Fury. Primary analysis of phase 2 results for cemiplimab in patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma who progressed on or were intolerant to hedgehog inhibitors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT165.

10029 Background: This is the first randomized trial testing the addition of an oncolytic virus to an immune checkpoint inhibitor for advanced melanoma. At the 3-year (yr) follow-up, the combination (combo) of T-VEC and ipi demonstrated durable and statistically superior objective response rate (ORR) over ipi alone (36.7% vs. 16.0%; odds ratio, 3.0; 95% Cl, 1.6–6.0; P = 0.002). Complete response (CR) rate was 21.4% with the combo and 6.0% with ipi. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm. In this post hoc analysis, we utilized the 3-yr landmark data to explore the relationship between CR and OS in the combo arm. Methods: Pts with unresectable, stage IIIB-IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive combo or ipi alone. T-VEC was administered intratumorally on day 1 of week (wk) 1 at 106 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL followed by subsequent doses at 108 PFU/mL on day 1 of wk 4, and every 2 wks thereafter. Ipi (3 mg/kg) was given every 3 wks starting on day 1 of wk 6 for up to 4 doses. Response was assessed by investigators per immune-related response criteria every 12 wks until disease progression. The primary endpoint was ORR; key secondary endpoints were OS, progression-free survival, and safety. Results: 198 pts were randomized (98 to combo; 100 to ipi). As of February 25, 2019, the median follow-up time was 40.0 mos (range: 0.2–63.7) for the combo arm. Among 98 pts who received combo, 21 (21.4%) had a best overall response of CR including 8 who converted from an initial partial response (PR), 15 (15.3%) had PR, 19 (19.4%) had stable disease, 30 (30.6%) had progressive disease, and 13 (13.2%) were unevaluable. Of 21 pts achieving CR, 17 (81%) had ECOG status of 0, 16 (76.2%) had stage IIIB-IVM1a disease, and 16 (76.2%) had no visceral metastases. Median duration of CR was not reached (range: 5.4[+]–58.2[+] mos); 19 of 21 CRs lasted more than 6 months. The baseline tumor burden was lower in pts with CR than in those with non-CR. Median OS was not reached in pts with CR (range: 25.1[+]–63.7[+] mos) and was 47.6 mos (range: 0.2[+]– 63.7[+] mos) in pts with non-CR (Log-rank P = 0.0005). The Kaplan–Meier estimated 3-year OS rate was 100.0% for patients with CR and 52.3% for those with non-CR. Conclusions: CR rate was higher with T-VEC plus ipi than with ipi alone in pts with advanced melanoma (21.4% vs. 6.0%). In the combo arm, CR was associated with prolonged OS, and pts with CR tended to have better ECOG performance status, earlier-stage disease, and lower baseline tumor burden, as compared with those with non-CR. Clinical trial information: NCT01740297.

8579 Background: The ERIVANCE BCC study is the pivotal trial of vismodegib (GDC-0449), a first-in-class small-molecule inhibitor of Hedgehog signaling, for treatment of locally advanced (laBCC) and metastatic BCC (mBCC), for whom there are no other effective therapy options. The study met the primary endpoint of overall response rate by independent review (Sekulic, Melanoma Res 2011). Here we report a 6-mo update of investigator-assessed (I-A) efficacy and safety endpoints as of May 26, 2011. Methods: This multicenter, international, nonrandomized 2-cohort study enrolled patients (pts) with laBCC (deemed inoperable or for whom surgery would be significantly disfiguring), and mBCC pts with RECIST-measurable disease. Pts received 150 mg oral vismodegib daily. Results: 104 pts (71 laBCC/33 mBCC) enrolled at 31 sites in the US, Europe, and Australia. I-A efficacy endpoints are shown in the table. One-year survival rate was 77.3% (95% CI 62.48–92.09%) for mBCC and 93.1% (95% CI 86.49–99.63%) for laBCC. Adverse events (AEs) in >30% of pts were muscle spasms, alopecia, dysgeusia, weight decrease, fatigue, nausea, and amenorrhea (33.3%; 2/6 pts). Serious AEs were reported in 32 pts (31%). No additional fatal AEs were reported since the prior data cut (n=7, 7%; none considered related to vismodegib). Conclusions: This 6-mo update of I-A efficacy and safety endpoints from the ERIVANCE BCC study supports the significant clinical benefit of vismodegib in both laBCC and mBCC reported at the primary analysis. Median DOR and PFS increased numerically with follow-up. The AE profile was consistent with the prior data cut. These results further support the efficacy of vismodegib for treatment of advanced BCC. [Table: see text]

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.

Abstract Abnormal activation of hedgehog pathway signaling is a key driver in the pathogenesis of basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Vismodegib, a first-in-class small-molecule inhibitor of hedgehog pathway signaling, is approved by regulatory authorities for the treatment of adults who have metastatic BCC or locally advanced BCC that has recurred after surgery, or who are not candidates for surgery and who are not candidates for radiation. A second inhibitor, sonidegib, was also recently approved for the same patient group with locally advanced BCC. Adverse events (AEs) commonly observed in hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HPI)-treated patients include muscle spasms, ageusia/dysgeusia, alopecia, weight loss, and asthenia (fatigue). These AEs are thought to be mechanistically related to inhibition of the hedgehog pathway in normal tissue. Although the severity of the majority of AEs associated with HPIs is grade 1–2, the long-term nature of these AEs can lead to decreased quality of life, treatment interruption, and in some cases discontinuation, all of which might affect clinical outcome. The incidence, clinical presentation, putative mechanisms, and management strategies for AEs related to HPIs in advanced BCC are described. These observations represent the first step toward the development of mechanism-based preventive and management strategies. Knowledge of these AEs will allow health care professionals to provide appropriate counseling and supportive care interventions, all of which will contribute to improved quality of life and optimal benefit from therapy.