Kaufman, Howard L.

Background Quality measures are important because they can help improve and standardize the delivery of cancer care among healthcare providers and across tumor types. In an environment characterized by a rapidly shifting immunotherapeutic landscape and lack of associated long-term outcome data, defining quality measures for cancer immunotherapy is a high priority yet fraught with many challenges. Methods Thus, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a multistakeholder expert panel to, first, identify the current gaps in measures of quality cancer care delivery as it relates to immunotherapy and to, second, advance priority concepts surrounding quality measures that could be developed and broadly adopted by the field. Results After reviewing the existing quality measure landscape employed for immunotherapeutic-based cancer care, the expert panel identified four relevant National Quality Strategy domains (patient safety, person and family-centered care, care coordination and communication, appropriate treatment selection) with significant gaps in immunotherapy-based quality cancer care delivery. Furthermore, these domains offer opportunities for the development of quality measures as they relate to cancer immunotherapy. These four quality measure concepts are presented in this consensus statement. Conclusions This work represents a first step toward defining and standardizing quality delivery of cancer immunotherapy in order to realize its optimal application and benefit for patients.

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.