Logan, Theodore F.

The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous provide strategies for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with cutaneous melanoma, which is among the most common cancers in the United States. The outcome of cutaneous melanoma is significantly influenced by stage at initial presentation. Generally, localized disease and smaller primary tumors have been associated with more favorable prognosis. Thus, the select content featured in this issue focuses on risk factors associated with cutaneous melanoma development and which should be considered during an initial assessment. These include (1) phenotypic predispositions, (2) personal medical history or comorbidities, (3) genetic predispositions, and (4) environmental factors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma (termed Melanoma: Cutaneous ) provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the update to neoadjuvant systemic therapy options and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma.

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 .

4521 Background: Expression of PDL1 by RCC has been associated with aggressive histology and poor survival. Tissue obtained from the patients enrolled in the IL-2 Select Trial, a prospective, single arm, multicenter CWG study, was analyzed by IHC to determine if PDL1or PDL3 expression predicted for response to initial or subsequent therapy. Methods: Paraffin embedded tumor tissue was stained for PDL1 and PDL3 expression, and results were correlated with RECIST defined response to IL2 treatment. Tumor tissue was considered positive for PDL1 if >5% of the tumor membranes stained for the marker. A cutoff of 10% was used for PDL3. Duration of subsequent VEGFR/mTOR inhibitor therapy was also correlated with tissue PDL1/3 expression. Results: 120 eligible pts were enrolled; 115 had clear cell histology. The overall response rate (ORR) to IL2 was 25% (30/120) with a median OS of 40.6 months. 113 tumors were stained. 18 (16%) were PDL1+. ORR was 19% and 50% in the patients PDL1- and PDL1+ tumors, respectively (p=0.012). 85 (75%) tumors were PDL3+. ORR was 10.7% and 29.4% in the PDL3- and PDL3+ tumors, respectively (p=0.075). In the 17 patients who were positive for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 52.9%. In the 27 pts who were negative for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 11.1%. 69 patients received at least 1 dose of a VEGFR TKI as next therapy following IL2 treatment. 66 tumors were stained. Pts who were PDL1+/PDL3+ had a shorter duration on VEGFR TKI therapy compared to pts who were PDL1-/PDL3- (see Table). Conclusions: This small, retrospective analysis suggests that PDL1 and PDL3 tissue expression may predict for better response to IL2. PDL1 expression has been suggested as a possible predictor of response to anti-PD1 therapy. The current data suggests that its expression may predict for benefit to other immune therapies. PDL3 (+/- PDL1) expression appears to correlate to less benefit from subsequent VEGFR TKI therapy. Funded by NCI SPORE Grant # 5 P50 CA101942-08. [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 Purpose: High-dose aldesleukin (HD IL2) received FDA approval for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) in 1992, producing a 14% objective response rate (ORR) and durable remissions. Retrospective studies suggested that clinical and pathologic features could predict for benefit. The Cytokine Working Group conducted this prospective trial to validate proposed predictive markers of response to HD IL2. Experimental Design: Standard HD IL2 was administered to prospectively evaluate whether the ORR of patients with mRCC with “good” predictive pathologic features based on an “integrated selection” model [ISM (e.g., clear-cell histology subclassification and carbonic anhydrase-9 (CA-9) IHC staining] was significantly higher than the ORR of a historical, unselected population. Archived tumor was collected for pathologic analysis including tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Results: One hundred and twenty eligible patients were enrolled between June 11 and September 7; 70% were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY) intermediate risk, 96% had clear cell RCC, and 99% had prior nephrectomy. The independently assessed ORR was 25% (30/120, 95% CI, 17.5%–33.7%, P = 0.0014; 3 complete responses, 27 partial responses) and was higher than a historical ORR. Thirteen patients (11%) remained progression free at 3 years and the median overall survival was 42.8 months. ORR was not statistically different by ISM classification (“good-risk” 23% vs. “poor-risk” 30%; P = 0.39). ORR was positively associated with tumor PD-L1 expression (P = 0.01) by IHC. Conclusions: In this prospective, biomarker validation study, HD IL2 produced durable remissions and prolonged survival in both “good” and “poor-risk” patients. The proposed ISM was unable to improve the selection criteria. Novel markers (e.g., tumor PD L1 expression) appeared useful, but require independent validation. Clin Cancer Res; 21(3); 561–8. ©2014 AACR.