Citations

TPS527 Background: Radical cystectomy is the standard of care for patients with BCG-unresponsive high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Based on the reported efficacy of atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma and the known expression of PD-L1 expression in NMIBC after BCG therapy, this trial will evaluate the activity of atezolizumab in BCG-unresponsive high risk NMIBC. Methods: This is a single arm phase II trial testing systemic atezolizumab (1200 mg IV) every 3 weeks for one year in 135 patients with BCG-unresponsive high risk NMIBC. The study will enroll 70 patients with CIS (with or without concomitant Ta/T1) and 65 with Ta/T1 only. Patients with CIS at baseline will undergo mandatory repeat biopsy at 6 months, and all other patients only for suspected recurrence. Patients with persistent CIS, high grade Ta/T1 recurrence or progression to muscle invasive or metastatic disease will be taken off treatment. The co-primary endpoints are: (1) complete response (CR) at 6 months in the CIS subgroup, and (2) event-free survival (EFS) at 18 months in the overall population. A hierarchical approach will be used to test the two co-primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints include duration of CR as well as progression-free, cystectomy-free, bladder cancer-specific, and overall survival in all patients. Response will be correlated to expression of PD-L1 and CD8 by IHC, and to molecular subtypes and immune signatures by RNA-sequencing. If ≥28 (40%) CIS patients respond, the agent will be considered promising. This design has a significance level of 4.6%, and a power of 96%. If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the 18-month EFS excludes 20%, the investigators will conclude the regimen significantly improves EFS relative to historical data (type I error rate 0.05 and statistical power 0.93). Successful completion of this trial could lead to a new treatment paradigm for patients with BCG-unresponsive high risk NMIBC. Funding: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, and CA180863. Clinical trial registry: NCT02844816 Clinical trial information: NCT02844816.

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.