Buchbinder, Elizabeth I.

9508 Background: Outcomes for pts with mMEL remain sobering despite access to available immunotherapies as the majority of pts are resistant or become refractory to checkpoint blockade with no approved treatments. CXCR1 and CXCR2 (CXCR1/2) signaling mediate myeloid immunosuppression and MEL growth, inversely correlating with anti-PD-1 response and pt survival. SX-682 is an oral allosteric inhibitor of CXCR1/2. As a single agent, SX-682 increases tumor CD8+ T cell infiltration and inhibits tumor growth in mouse MEL. Methods: This phase 1 dose-escalation with expansion trial (NCT03161431) evaluated pem and escalating doses of SX-682 (25 - 400 mg orally BID) in pts with mMEL in a 21-day cycle. Pts must have had progressive disease (PD) on prior anti-PD-1. Mucosal MEL and asymptomatic brain metastases were allowed. Escalation cohorts had a 21-day SX-682 monotherapy (MONO) run-in. Response assessment by RECIST 1.1 was every 2 cycles during combination (COMBO) treatment. Primary endpoint was safety: adverse events (AEs), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximally-tolerated dose (MTD). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR; complete [CR] + partial [PR] response), disease control rate (DCR; CR + PR + stable disease [SD]) and overall survival (OS). Results: As of October 2023, 51 pts were enrolled and treated; median age of 65 (range 24-91), 55% male, 61% elevated LDH, 39% BRAF mutated. All pts received prior anti-PD-1, 37 (73%) received combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4, and 23 (45%) had ≥ 3 prior therapies. Steady-state blood SX-682 was dose-proportional. No MONO DLT or MTD was identified. The 200 mg dose cohort was expanded in COMBO based on safety and pharmacodynamics: mg BID dose (n) = 25 (3), 50 (3), 100 (6), 150 (8), 200 (31). Any grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 75% and 43%, respectively, and discontinuation (DC) due to TRAEs in 20% (when uncomplicated neutropenia, a permitted effect from CXCR2 inhibition on bone-marrow trafficking, was excluded there were 25% grade 3/4 TRAEs and 12% DC [rash, transaminitis]). There was no infectious signal. At the 200 mg dose, the ORR was 21% in 19 evaluable pts (4 PR + 0 CR) and the DCR was 63% (8 SD + 4 PR). DCR significantly depended on SX-682 dose ( P vs. ≤100 mg): 0% (0/9) at ≤100 mg, 50% (3/6) at 150 mg ( P = 0.0440) and 63% (12/19) at 200 mg ( P = 0.0028). All 15 pts with disease control had progressed on anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4. Median OS was longer in pts in the 200 mg cohort (14.7 months; 95% CI, 10.5 – NR [not reached], n = 31) than in pts treated with ≤100 mg SX-682 (7.4 months; 95% CI, 5.0 – NR; n = 10). Conclusions: SX-682 combined with pem had a tolerable safety profile and activity reflected by objective responses and clinically meaningful disease control in heavily pretreated mMEL pts with progression on anti-PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4. Clinical trial information: NCT03161431 .

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.

BRAF-targeted kinase inhibitors (KIs) are used to treat malignancies including BRAF-mutant non–small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer, and, most prominently, melanoma. However, KI selection criteria in patients remain unclear, as are pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) mechanisms that may limit context-dependent efficacy and differentiate related drugs. To address this issue, we imaged mouse models of BRAF-mutant cancers, fluorescent KI tracers, and unlabeled drug to calibrate in silico spatial PK/PD models. Results indicated that drug lipophilicity, plasma clearance, faster target dissociation, and, in particular, high albumin binding could limit dabrafenib action in visceral metastases compared to other KIs. This correlated with retrospective clinical observations. Computational modeling identified a timed strategy for combining dabrafenib and encorafenib to better sustain BRAF inhibition, which showed enhanced efficacy in mice. This study thus offers principles of spatial drug action that may help guide drug development, KI selection, and combination.

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.