Butler, Marcus O.

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.

Background Most patients with advanced melanomas relapse after checkpoint blockade therapy. Thus, immunotherapies are needed that can be applied safely early, in the adjuvant setting. Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine containing human melanoma antigens, plus alum. To assess the efficacy of seviprotimut-L, the Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study (MAVIS) was initiated as a three-part multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results from part B1 are reported here. Methods Patients with AJCC V.7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma after resection were randomized 2:1, with stage stratification (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C), to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint. For an hypothesized HR of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%, target enrollment was 325 patients. Results For randomized patients (n=347), arms were well-balanced, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for seviprotimut-L and placebo. For the primary intent-to-treat endpoint of RFS, the estimated HR was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.233), with stratified logrank p=0.46. However, estimated HRs were not uniform over the stage randomized strata, with HRs (95% CIs) for stages IIB/IIC, IIIA, IIIB/IIIC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.19), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.50), and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.97), respectively. In the stage IIB/IIC stratum, the effect on RFS was greatest for patients <60 years old (HR=0.324 (95% CI: 0.121 to 0.864)) and those with ulcerated primary melanomas (HR=0.493 (95% CI: 0.255 to 0.952)). Conclusions Seviprotimut-L is very well tolerated. Exploratory efficacy model estimation supports further study in stage IIB/IIC patients, especially younger patients and those with ulcerated melanomas. Trial registration number NCT01546571.

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 &gt;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.

9506 Background: Survival is poor in mUM and treatment options are limited. MET kinase is over-expressed on UM and the MET inhibitor cabo showed activity in an early trial. Methods: A091201 was a 2:1 randomized phase II study testing progression-free survival (PFS) of cabo (60 mg daily) vs chemo (DTIC/TMZ). We studied baseline metastatic tumor samples (n = 19; 1 lung, 18 liver) by whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNAseq. We correlated data with OS and made comparisons for mUM vs. primary tumors from TCGA (n = 80). Results: 46 patients were accrued with 96% and 63% with liver metastases and elevated LDH, respectively. Toxicities were similar to prior reports of cabo and chemo. The trial stopped at interim analysis due to no difference in PFS (p = 0.964; HR = 0.99) or OS (p = 0.580; HR = 1.21). WES showed tumor mutational burden of 46±4 (mean±SEM) and did not separate OS at 1 year (p = 0.14, two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test) in A091201. Recurrent known mutations included GNAQ/11, SF3B1, BAP1; novel mutations included GOLGA6L10, PKD1L3, and FAM228B. Gene expression signatures differed significantly between A091201 and TCGA cohorts including MET signaling (p = 7.87e-22), T cell-inflamed (p = 0.004), homologous recombination deficiency (p = 0.004), proliferation (p = 0.009) and hypoxia (p = 5.2e-10) (two-sided Student’s t-test). Tumor immune cell enrichment analysis revealed significant differences with lower M1:M2 macrophage (p = 1.2e-10) and higher Tregs (p = 6.0E-21) in mUM relative to TCGA (two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test). Epithelial-mesenchymal transition gene expression signature was significantly associated with worse OS in A091201 (p = 0.02) with angiogenesis signature trending toward significance (p = 0.21) (log-rank test). OS separated by differentially expressed genes with OS ≤ 1 year associating with increased expression of the angiogenesis/immune-associated molecule neuropilin 1. Conclusions: These results provide insights between primary and mUM indicating potential novel therapeutic approaches. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, T32GM007019, Exelixis. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Clinical trial information: NCT01835145.

Abstract Background: This is an update of the safety and efficacy of durvalumab monotherapy in pts with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) from an ongoing, phase 1/2 open-label study (NCT01693562). Methods: Pts received 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks up to 12 months or until unacceptable toxicity, progression, or starting another anticancer therapy. Pts were stratified by tumor PD-L1 expression (Ventana PD-L1 [SP263] Assay [PD-L1 cutoff: ≥25% of tumor cells and/or immune cells with membrane staining]) and treatment line. Results: As of the data cutoff (16Oct2017), 201 UC pts with Stage IV disease received treatment, with a median follow-up of 16.9 months (range, 0.4-37.7). Across treatment lines, objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review was 17.4% (95% CI, 12.4, 23.4) in all pts; 27.5% in the PD-L1 ≥25% group vs 5.8% in the PD-L1 &lt;25% group. The responses have been durable regardless of PD-L1 status, with the median duration of response not yet reached in the PD-L1 ≥25% group and 12.2 months in the PD-L1 &lt;25% group. Responses lasted ≥12 mo in 62.9% of responders (max 25.7+ mo). Overall, median OS was 10.5 months (95% CI, 6.9, 15.7); 19.8 months in the PD-L1 ≥25% group vs 4.8 months in the PD-L1 &lt;25% group (Table). Pts previously treated with platinum based chemotherapy also reported similar durable responses. At least one treatment-related AE was reported in 120 pts (59.7%), including fatigue (39 [19.4%]), decreased appetite and rash (18 [9.0%] each), and diarrhea (16 [8.0%]). Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 19 (9.5%) pts; 6 (3.0%) treatment discontinuations and 2 (1.0%) deaths were attributed to treatment-related AEs. Conclusions: With extended follow-up, durvalumab continues to show durable clinical activity in UC pts, especially in the PD-L1 ≥25% group with an acceptable toxicity profile. PD-L1 ≥25%PD-L1 &lt;25%PD-L1 unknownTotalAll UCn=102n=86n=13N=201Confirmed ORR, %27.55.815.417.4(95% CI)(19.1, 37.2)(1.9, 13.0)(1.9, 45.4)(12.4, 23.4)CR, %7.83.57.76.0PR, %19.62.37.711.4Median DoR, monthsNR12.2NRNR(min, max)(2.7, 25.7+)(8.6, 21.7+)(14.5+, 14.6+)(2.7, 25.7+)Median PFS, months (95% CI)1.9 (1.4, 2.7)1.4 (1.3, 1.5)2.8 (1.4, NE)1.5 (1.4, 1.8)6-month PFS rate, %28.68.625.220.412-month PFS rate, %22.37.125.216.2Median OS, months (95% CI)19.8 (9.3, NE)19.8 (9.3, NE)4.8 (3.3, 8.1)NR (4.9, NE)10.5 (6.9, 15.7)6-month OS rate, %67.645.869.258.912-month OS rate, %57.629.561.546.6 Citation Format: Peter O'Donnell, Christophe Massard, Bhumsuk Keam, Sang-We Kim, Terry Friedlander, Myung-Ju Ahn, Michael Ong, Michael Gordon, Marcus Butler, Scott Antonia, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Martin Gutierrez, Sumati Gupta, Alexander Spira, Alexandra Drakaki, Michele Maio, Feng Xiao, Natasha Angra, Shaad Abdullah, Thomas Powles. Updated efficacy and safety profile of durvalumab monotherapy in urothelial carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT031.