Katharina C. Kaehler

Monoclonal antibodies directed against cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), such as ipilimumab, yield considerable clinical benefit for patients with metastatic melanoma by inhibiting immune checkpoint activity, but clinical predictors of response to these therapies remain incompletely characterized. To investigate the roles of tumor-specific neoantigens and alterations in the tumor microenvironment in the response to ipilimumab, we analyzed whole exomes from pretreatment melanoma tumor biopsies and matching germline tissue samples from 110 patients. For 40 of these patients, we also obtained and analyzed transcriptome data from the pretreatment tumor samples. Overall mutational load, neoantigen load, and expression of cytolytic markers in the immune microenvironment were significantly associated with clinical benefit. However, no recurrent neoantigen peptide sequences predicted responder patient populations. Thus, detailed integrated molecular characterization of large patient cohorts may be needed to identify robust determinants of response and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) blocking antibody, has been approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and induces adverse events (AE) in up to 64% of patients. Treatment algorithms for the management of common ipilimumab-induced AEs have lead to a reduction of morbidity, e.g. due to bowel perforations. However, the spectrum of less common AEs is expanding as ipilimumab is increasingly applied. Stringent recognition and management of AEs will reduce drug-induced morbidity and costs, and thus, positively impact the cost-benefit ratio of the drug. To facilitate timely identification and adequate management data on rare AEs were analyzed at 19 skin cancer centers. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Patient files (n = 752) were screened for rare ipilimumab-associated AEs. A total of 120 AEs, some of which were life-threatening or even fatal, were reported and summarized by organ system describing the most instructive cases in detail. Previously unreported AEs like drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), granulomatous inflammation of the central nervous system, and aseptic meningitis, were documented. Obstacles included patientś delay in reporting symptoms and the differentiation of steroid-induced from ipilimumab-induced AEs under steroid treatment. Importantly, response rate was high in this patient population with tumor regression in 30.9% and a tumor control rate of 61.8% in stage IV melanoma patients despite the fact that some patients received only two of four recommended ipilimumab infusions. This suggests that ipilimumab-induced antitumor responses can have an early onset and that severe autoimmune reactions may reflect overtreatment. CONCLUSION: The wide spectrum of ipilimumab-induced AEs demands doctor and patient awareness to reduce morbidity and treatment costs and true ipilimumab success is dictated by both objective tumor responses and controlling severe side effects.

PURPOSE: A topical Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) agonist induces regression of cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms. We explored antitumor activity of a systemically administered TLR7 agonist, 852A, in patients with metastatic melanoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We undertook a phase II, multicenter, open-label study in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic melanoma. Patients received i.v. 852A, starting at 0.6 mg/m(2) and increasing to 0.9 mg/m(2) based on tolerance, thrice per week for 12 weeks. Clinical response was determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Immune effects of 852A were monitored by measuring serum type I IFN and IP-10 together with assessment of immune cell markers in peripheral blood. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Thirteen patients completed the initial 12-week treatment cycle, with two discontinuing for adverse events considered to be possibly related to study drug. Four (19%) patients had disease stabilization for >100 days. One patient had a partial remission after two treatment cycles, but progressed during the third. Dose-limiting toxicity was observed in two patients. Serum type I IFN and IP-10 increased in most patients on 852A administration. Serum type I IFN increases were greater after dosing with 852A 0.9 mg/m(2) than after 0.6 mg/m(2) (P = 0.009). The maximal increase in IP-10 compared with baseline correlated with the maximal increase in type I IFN (P = 0.003). In the eight patients with immune cell marker data, CD86 expression on monocytes increased significantly post-first dose (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Intravenous 852A was well tolerated and induced systemic immune activation that eventually resulted in prolonged disease stabilization in some patients with stage IV metastatic melanoma who had failed chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab have shown activity in melanoma brain metastasis (MBM). However, in most of the clinical trials investigating immunotherapy in this subgroup, patients with symptomatic MBM and/or prior local brain radiotherapy were excluded. We studied the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab alone or in combination with local therapies regardless of treatment line in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic MBM. METHODS: Patients with MBM treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 23 German Skin Cancer Centers between April 2015 and October 2018 were investigated. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier estimator and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to determine prognostic factors associated with OS. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty patients were included in this study and 31% had symptomatic MBM (60/193 with data available) at the time of start nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The median follow-up was 18 months and the 2 years and 3 years OS rates were 41% and 30%, respectively. We identified the following independently significant prognostic factors for OS: elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase and protein S100B levels, number of MBM and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. In these patients treated with checkpoint inhibition first-line or later, in the subgroup of patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma we found no differences in terms of OS when receiving first-line either BRAF and MEK inhibitors or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (p=0.085). In BRAF wild-type patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in first-line or later there was also no difference in OS (p=0.996). Local therapy with stereotactic radiosurgery or surgery led to an improvement in OS compared with not receiving local therapy (p=0.009), regardless of the timepoint of the local therapy. Receiving combined immunotherapy for MBM in first-line or at a later time point made no difference in terms of OS in this study population (p=0.119). CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, particularly in combination with stereotactic radiosurgery or surgery improves OS in asymptomatic and symptomatic MBM.