Citations

PURPOSE Survival for patients with melanoma has recently improved. The propensity of melanoma to metastasize to the brain remains a common and serious feature of this disease. The purposes of this study were to evaluate prognostic factors for patients with newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) in a large cohort treated with modern multimodal therapies, compare those results with those in prior eras, and update the Melanoma Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). METHODS Univariable and multivariable (MVA) analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival were performed on 1,796 patients with newly diagnosed MBM treated between January 01, 2015, and December 31, 2021, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness of potential predictors. Significant variables in combined MVA were used to update the Melanoma GPA. Comparisons were made with legacy cohorts. RESULTS Median survivals for cohorts A (1985-2007, n = 481), B (2006-2015, n = 823), and C (2015-2021, n = 1,796) were 6.7, 9.8, and 16.6 months and median follow-up times were 40.1, 43.6, and 48.8 months, respectively. In combined MVA, significant prognostic factors for survival were higher Karnofsky Performance Status, fewer MBMs, absence of extracranial metastases, lower serum lactate dehydrogenase, and no immunotherapy before MBM. These factors were incorporated into the updated Melanoma GPA. The combined median and 3-year survivals for patients with GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, and 2.5-4.0 were 5.4, 13.2, and 43.2 months and 12.4%, 28.8%, and 51.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION Prognostic factors have changed and survival has improved for patients with MBM but varies widely by GPA. The updated Melanoma GPA calculator (BrainMetGPA), available free online, can be used to estimate survival, individualize treatment, stratify clinical trials, guide surveillance, and augment clinical trial eligibility. Multidisciplinary treatment is essential. Trials are needed to elucidate the optimal sequencing of various therapeutic modalities.

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.

Abstract Brain metastases occur commonly in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Yet, less is known about brain metastases than cancer-related entities of similar incidence. Advances in oncologic care have heightened the importance of intracranial management. Here, in this consensus review supported by the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), we review the landscape of brain metastases with particular attention to management approaches and ongoing efforts with potential to shape future paradigms of care. Each coauthor carried an area of expertise within the field of brain metastases and initially composed, edited, or reviewed their specific subsection of interest. After each subsection was accordingly written, multiple drafts of the manuscript were circulated to the entire list of authors for group discussion and feedback. The hope is that the these consensus guidelines will accelerate progress in the understanding and management of patients with brain metastases, and highlight key areas in need of further exploration that will lead to dedicated trials and other research investigations designed to advance the field.

Key Points An incidental histologic diagnosis of DLBCL was identified during temporary interruption of ibrutinib treatment in patients with CLL. In contrast to an aggressive clinical course typical of Richter transformation, these patients responded to reinitiation of ibrutinib alone.

11015 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated activity in multiple tumor types but their activity in soft tissue sarcomas remains limited. In the multicenter phase II study, SARC028, the anti-PD-1 antibody, P demonstrated objective responses that were largely restricted to UPS and LPS subtypes. We now report outcomes from 2 expansion cohorts of SARC 028 in advanced UPS and LPS. Methods: To further confirm the clinical activity of P in UPS and LPS, we enrolled an additional 30 pts in each of 2 expansion cohorts for a total of 40 UPS and 40 LPS pts. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed response by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints were safety, progression-free survival (PFS), 12-week PFS rate, and overall survival (OS). An ORR of 25% was considered clinically meaningful and < 10% was considered to show lack of efficacy. P was to be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients had a PR or better (1-sided α = 0.042, 82% power). Pts age ≥18 with advanced, refractory UPS or LPS received 200 mg of P IV every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: Preliminary results from the first 10 pts in each of the UPS and LPS cohorts have been reported. We now present summary data after enrolling an additional 30 pts in each cohort. The ORR in the UPS cohort was 23% (9/40), with an additional 5/30 PRs observed in the expansion cohort (total 2 CRs, 7 PRs). In the LPS cohort, the ORR was 10% (4/39 evaluable pts), with an additional 2/30 PRs observed (total 4 PRs). Median PFS for the UPS group was 3 months [95% CI: 2, 5] and 2 months [95% CI: 2, 4] for the LPS group. 12-week PFS rate was 50% in UPS [95% CI: 35, 65] and 44% in LPS [95% CI: 28, 60]. The UPS group had a median OS of 12 months [95% CI: 7, 34] and 13 months [95% CI: 8, NR] for the LPS group. P was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities. Conclusions: The UPS cohort achieved its primary endpoint, however the activity of P in UPS deserves further evaluation in a randomized study. The activity of P was not confirmed in the LPS cohort. Ongoing biomarker analyses may direct better patient selection and guide future combination strategies. Clinical trial information: NCT02301039.

Abstract Purpose: We recently reported a 17.5% objective RECIST 1.1 response rate in a phase II study of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced sarcoma (SARC028). The majority of responses occurred in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS). We sought to determine whether we can identify immune features that correlate with clinical outcomes from tumor tissues obtained pre- and on-treatment. Patients and Methods: Pretreatment (n = 78) and 8-week on-treatment (n = 68) tumor biopsies were stained for PD-L1 and multiplex immunofluorescence panels. The density of positive cells was quantified to determine associations with anti–PD-1 response. Results: Patients that responded to pembrolizumab were more likely to have higher densities of activated T cells (CD8+ CD3+ PD-1+) and increased percentage of tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) expressing PD-L1 pre-treatment compared with non-responders. Pre-treatment tumors from responders also exhibited higher densities of effector memory cytotoxic T cells and regulatory T cells compared with non-responders. In addition, higher density of cytotoxic tumor-infiltrating T cells at baseline correlated with a better progression-free survival (PFS). Conclusions: We show that quantitative assessments of CD8+ CD3+ PD-1+ T cells, percentage of TAMs expressing PD-L1, and other T-cell densities correlate with sarcoma response to pembrolizumab and improved PFS. Our findings support that multiple cell types present at the start of treatment may enhance tumor regression following anti–PD-1 therapy in specific advanced sarcomas. Efforts to confirm the activity of pembrolizumab in an expansion cohort of patients with UPS/DDLPS are underway.

60 Background: The activity of the anti-PD-1 antibody P in pts with advanced STS was evaluated in a prospective multicenter Phase II study conducted by the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration (SARC). SARC028 enrolled 40 patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Pembro had an ORR of 19% and PFS rate at 12 weeks of 55%, suggesting clinical activity. We investigated biomarkers of response to P. Methods: The primary endpoint was Objective Response Rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and biomarkers of response in blood and tumor. Pre- and on-treatment biopsies were required and obtained from over 90% and 72% of pts respectively. Serum was obtained from all pts at baseline and at multiple time points on therapy (pre-, week 8, and every 12 weeks). Sera were examined for candidate circulating biomarkers by Affymetrix Luminex platform array, including PD-L2. To determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between different conditions, we used Mann-Whitney and two-tailed t tests. Log-rank p-values in Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were calculated using the "survival" R package. Results: Forty pts with STS were enrolled into 4 cohorts (10 each) based on histological subtype including undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), dedifferentiated liposarcoma (LPS), synovial sarcoma (SS), and leiomyosarcoma (LMS). 4 pts with UPS, 2 pts with LPS, and one pt with SS achieved a response. Six of seven responses were durable at the time of this analysis. Circulating levels at baseline or after therapy of PD-1, PD-L1, 4-1BB, IDO, BTLA, CTLA-4, LAG-3, and TIM-3 did not correlate with outcome. However, pre-treatment and week 8 PD-L2 levels correlated best with clinical outcome: high PD-L2 levels were associated with better PFS (p=0.019) in STS. Conclusions: P has clinical activity in specific histologic subtypes of STS, namely UPS and LPS. Pre-treatment circulating PD-L2 levels correlated with progression-free survival and is a novel and promising predictor of improved clinical outcome of PD-1 therapy in STS.

e14144 Background: There is little real-world evidence evaluating treatment patterns and outcomes with IO therapies for pts with advanced melanoma (aMEL). We present results from the OPTIMIzE (NCT02780089) study in pts with aMEL receiving IO therapies. Methods: OPTIMIzE is a US-based multisite (150 sites), community-based study of adult pts with aMEL. Pts receiving first-line (1L) nivolumab (NIVO)+ipilimumab (IPI), anti-PD-1 (NIVO/pembrolizumab), or IPI between 2011-2018 with a minimum 1 y of follow-up were included. Baseline characteristics, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and quality of life (QoL) were analyzed. QoL assessments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Melanoma (FACT-M), EQ-5D index, and visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Cohort size: 81 NIVO+IPI, 147 anti-PD-1, and 16 IPI (IPI arm not included in the analysis). Overall, mean age was 64.5 y; 42% had BRAF mutation. Mean follow-up was 14.1 mo. Pts in the NIVO+IPI group were younger, had better ECOG performance status, and a higher likelihood of M1c disease and elevated LDH vs the anti-PD-1 group. ORR was higher for pts treated with NIVO+IPI vs anti-PD-1 (48% vs 33%, P= 0.08). Unadjusted 1-y OS was 78.4% for NIVO+IPI and 73.1% for anti-PD-1. In multivariate Cox model analysis, the hazard ratio for OS for NIVO+IPI vs anti-PD-1 was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.46–1.33; P= 0.36). Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 53% and 22% of pts in the NIVO+IPI and anti-PD-1 groups, respectively ( P˂0.001). QoL changes from baseline were clinically meaningful for EQ-5D VAS and FACT-M in the NIVO+IPI group at 12 mo (Table). After adjusting for baseline covariates, the difference at 12 mo between NIVO+IPI vs anti-PD-1 was 6.7 ( P= 0.04) for EQ-5D VAS and 8.8 ( P= 0.02) for FACT-M. Conclusions: Safety and efficacy outcomes from this prospective real-world study are consistent with those reported in prior clinical trials in treatment-naive aMEL pts. No clinically meaningful deterioration in QoL measures was observed in either group. Clinical trial information: NCT02780089. [Table: see text]