Ipilimumab plus nivolumab for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a multicenter, retrospective study

Yana G. Najjar(UPMC Hillman Cancer Center), Kristina Navrazhina(Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), Fei Ding(UPMC Hillman Cancer Center), Roma Bhatia(Mount Sinai Beth Israel), Katy K. Tsai(UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center), Kelly Abbate(Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), Barbara Durden(University of South Florida), Zeynep Eroglu(Moffitt Cancer Center), Shailender Bhatia(University of Washington), Song Park(University of Washington), Akansha Chowdhary(Northwestern University), Sunandana Chandra(Northwestern University), Jonathan Kennedy(Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center), Igor Puzanov(Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center), Marc S. Ernstoff(Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center), Pankit Vachhani(University of Alabama at Birmingham), Joseph J. Drabick(Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center), Arun D. Singh(Cleveland Clinic), Xu Tan(Cleveland Clinic), Jessica Yang(Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), Richard D. Carvajal(Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center), Daniel K. Manson(Columbia University), John M. Kirkwood(UPMC Hillman Cancer Center), Justine V. Cohen(Massachusetts General Hospital), Ryan J. Sullivan(Massachusetts General Hospital), Douglas B. Johnson(Vanderbilt University Medical Center), Pauline Funchain(Cleveland Clinic), Alexander N. Shoushtari(Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
June 1, 2020
Cited by 122Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma (CM), there is no standard therapy, and the efficacy and safety of dual checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab is not well defined. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic UM (mUM) who received treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across 14 academic medical centers. Toxicity was graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: 89 eligible patients were identified. 45% had received prior therapy, which included liver directed therapy (29%), immunotherapy (21%), targeted therapy (10%) and radiation (16%). Patients received a median 3 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The median follow-up time was 9.2 months. Overall response rate was 11.6%. One patient achieved complete response (1%), 9 patients had partial response (10%), 21 patients had stable disease (24%) and 55 patients had progressive disease (62%). Median OS from treatment initiation was 15 months and median PFS was 2.7 months. Overall, 82 (92%) of patients discontinued treatment, 34 due to toxicity and 27 due to progressive disease. Common immune-related adverse events were colitis/diarrhea (32%), fatigue (23%), rash (21%) and transaminitis (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Dual checkpoint inhibition yielded higher response rates than previous reports of single-agent immunotherapy in patients with mUM, but the efficacy is lower than in metastatic CM. The median OS of 15 months suggests that the rate of clinical benefit may be larger than the modest response rate.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis