Primer for Current Melanoma Treatments - New and Improved Version 2022!!!!

Originally posted in 2017, sadly, this primer has needed little in the way of updates since.  Still, there have been a few FDA approvals, meds I didn't include in the first rendition, and some news in the research so it is getting a reboot. Initially created to save re-writes for those in need, I still answer melanoma questions on boards or via email at least every other week, but want to emphasize that this is not an all inclusive listing.  Rather, this is a basic guide to use in starting your research or discussions with your provider regarding melanoma care.  As recently, as 2010, NONE of the current, most effective treatments for melanoma were FDA approved.  Since then, doctors have become more knowledgeable about consistently offering and better skilled in managing these treatments.  Still, it is essential that you be seen by an oncologist who specializes in, or at the very least, has treated many patients with melanoma.  Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words ~ 

Here we go:

SURGERY

Surgery remains a good choice for many melanoma patients.  Clearly this is the case for a new cutaneous lesion.  Surgery results in an immediate decrease in your tumor burden - almost always a good thing.  However, with data showing good results in NEO-adjuvant treatment, the possibility of using intralesional therapy, or if you are looking for a clinical trial, there are times when measurable disease is needed, so a discussion of these things before surgery is important.  However, for patients with advanced disease decreasing tumor burden through surgery remains an important option for increased survival.  This 2019 report addresses some of the conundrum:  Cut it out!!! Prolonged overall survival following metastasectomy in Stage IV melanoma 

RADIATION

Radiation, when combined with immunotherapy or targeted therapy, can be a very good treatment option for melanoma.  Together, radiation and systemic therapy can illicit responses that are greater than either treatment used as a single agent.  However, targeted radiation (SRS - stereotactic radiation or Gamma Knife) is the most effective whether you are talking about brain tumors or lesions in the body.  We have learned that whole brain radiation (WBR) is not the most effective way to treat melanoma and can lead to debilitation.  While there are those who must avail themselves of this treatment due to extreme circumstances, it should not be the first recommendation right out of the box for those with brain tumors.  Even multiple brain mets can be treated simultaneously with SRS.   Here are zillions of reports regarding the effectiveness of using radiation WITH immunotherapy: Radiation WITH immunotherapy  Here is a report from 2019 regarding the use of radiation prior to targeted therapy:  Better melanoma results with radiation BEFORE BRAFi (at least in this report)

IMMUNOTHERAPY

These are treatments that push our immune systems into action.  Side effects (as you might imagine) are usually related to an 'over activation' of the immune system.  Common side effects include - fatigue, rashes, joint pain.  More complicated side effects are inflammation of the lungs (pneumonitis) and colon (colitis) with difficulty breathing and wheeze or diarrhea and abdominal discomfort, respectively.  Patients can experience problems with thyroid function and other glands of the endocrine system.  Responses take time.  Experts are known to advise other docs to be 'patient with the patient!'  Immunotherapy works best with the lowest tumor burden.

Old school immunotherapy

Interferon

Discovered in 1957, interferons are a type of signaling proteins released by cells in response to viruses, bacteria, parasites, and tumors that help rally the immune response of the body against these invaders. In the early 1980's researchers and pharma were finally able to produce interferon for use as a medical therapy. There are many forms, used in treating various conditions (some more effectively than others) from multiple sclerosis to leukemia to melanoma. Often given as subcutaneous injections (though there are eye drops and inhalation forms), interferon causes significant side effects with fatigue, flu-like symptoms, hair loss, pain, depression and increased risk of infection due to neutropenia (decreased white cells) being common. Unfortunately, we have learned that in melanoma, interferon has a clinically insignificant effect on progression free survival as well as overall survival.

IL-2 (Interleukin 2) also known as aldesleukin, proleukin, and/or sylatron

Similarly, IL-2 is a signaling molecule that directs the actions of white blood cells in getting rid of invaders. Isolated in 1979, by the early 80's pharma (Ceta, Amgen, Roche) were in a mad dash to get a drug to market. It was FDA approved in 1992. It has been used in the treatment of HIV, renal cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Though it can be injected subcutaneously on an outpatient basis, in melanoma it is most often given in an IV infusion, with side effects (extreme swelling, rash/peeling skin, hallucinations, among other horrors) such that patients must be in the hospital, in an intensive care setting, for infusions that are given every 8 hours for up to 15 doses or as the patient can tolerate. It is also used in a low dose regimen with old school TIL therapy as a way to jump start the immune system after chemo has been given to eradicate existing regulatory T cells and new T cells grown from the patient's tumor have been infused.  See this 2021 report:  TIL - A report out of ASCO 2021 and incredible words from one of Melanoma's Most Fearless and Inspiring Leaders  It is also being studied as an intralesional (see below). Ultimately, we now know that the use of high dose IL-2 in melanoma can produce a complete response in about 5-6% of the patients, with some of those responses being durable (lasting).  

Current Immunotherapy (also referred to as Check Point Inhibitors)

Ipilimumab (Brand name = Yervoy, slang = 'ipi') – anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal anti-body

Ipilimumab is a monoclonal anti-body that is used to restart the immune system by targeting CTLA-4, a protein receptor that actually turns the immune response OFF!!! The concept of using anti-CTLA-4 antibodies to treat cancer was developed by Dr. James Allison, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2014.  It was approved for melanoma (Stage IV or unresectable Stage III) in 2011. It was approved as an adjuvant treatment for melanoma in 2015. However, we have since learned that melanoma patients with advanced disease respond much better to the ipi/nivo combo rather than ipi as a single agent and folks in need of adjuvant therapy do much better with one of the anti-PD-1 products.  Ipi as a single agent was administered via an IV infusion every 3 weeks, for a total of 4 doses, at 3mg/kg for Stage IV patients and 10mg/kg for adjuvant therapy. Some adjuvant treatment plans continued ipi at that same dosage but every 12 weeks for up to 3 years. Melanoma patients given ipi can attain a response rate of about 15%. Responses can be durable.   Patients experience more side effects with ipi than they do with anti-PD-1 products and ipi is the bad boy of side effects in the ipi/nivo combo.  Ipi at 10mg/kg produces more side effects than ipi at 3mg/kg.  The ipi/nivolumab combo was FDA approved in (2015).  In that treatment, patients are given an infusion of ipi at 3 mg/kg after nivo at 1mg/kg is given on the same day, every 3 weeks, for 4 doses, followed by one year of nivo as a single agent. 

Anti-PD-1 (Brand names = Opdivo and Keytruda, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab respectively.)

      

Background:  PD-1, also called programmed cell death protein 1, is a membrane protein and a T cell regulator, first discovered to be an immune checkpoint in 2000.  PD-1 is expressed on the surface of activated T cells, B cells and macrophages (white cells that can be involved in tissue repair or digestion of debris or pathogens). Compared to CTLA-4, PD-1 is keyed to specific tissues with the PD-L1 ligand, while CTLA-4 is less specific.

PD-L-1 is a ligand present on the surface of melanoma tumors (as well as some others) that can bind to infiltrating t-cells and turn them off!!

  

ANTI-PD-1 (the drugs) are monoclonal antibodies that block the switch on T cells so that PD-L1, on the surface of melanoma tumor cells, does NOT bind with them and turn them off....thereby allowing these cells to carry on and destroy melanoma tumors.

Sometimes pictures tell the story better:

    Nivolumab: (Brand name = Opdivo, slang = 'nivo') - anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody

I wrote a little story about the development of nivo here, but basically, in 2014 Nivo was approved for the use in advanced melanoma patients only AFTER they had failed ipi and, if BRAF positive, BRAF inhibitors as well.  In November 2015 it was approved as a first line drug for unresectable or advanced melanoma BUT you had to be BRAF positive.  (A cosmically ridiculous judgement since we already had studies proving that BRAF status made little to no difference in response!!)  Finally, in 2016, based on the results of the  Checkpoint-067 study, nivo was approved for use alone or in combination with ipi, in advanced melanoma patients, no matter BRAF status.  And in 2017, it gained approval as an adjuvant treatment option.  This was seriously good news!!!  It meant even if you are Stage IV with all tumors removed (or zapped) - you can still take nivo.  Or, if you are Stage III with melanoma that went to your lymph nodes - you can take nivo!   Since then, nivo has also been approved for use in NSC lung cancer, urothelial and renal cell cancers, gastric and esophageal cancers, hepatocellular carcinoma as well as head and neck cancers.

      Pembrolizumab: (Brand name = Keytruda, slang = 'pembro') - anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody

Pembro was similarly approved for advanced melanoma in 2014.  Since then it has been approved in various algorithms for NSCLC, head and neck squamous cell cancers, Hodgkins lymphoma, and endometrial cancers.  In 2019, it was approved for adjuvant treatment of Stage III melanoma and for Stage II adjuvant melanoma in December of 2021.

Response rate and side effects for advanced melanoma patients:

Both anti-PD-1 drugs as single agents effect about a 40% response rate in melanoma. They can work in the brain and the body.  Median time to response is about 3 months.  But, there are outliers, with documented responses, that do not occur until 6 - 9 months.  Here's a cool graph...

Here's a post with more info: Time to Response...Ipi vs Nivo and ipi 

Responses to immunotherapy have proven to be durable!!!   This post includes neat charts regarding response and durability to Pembro: Dr. Daud review from ASCO 2016   There is this from 2020:  Response after discontinuation of anti-PD-1 in melanoma patients whether due to disease progression, side effects or choice  And this from 2021:  ASCO 2021 - Outcomes of treatments on advanced disease - Reasons for HOPE!!!!!

Side effects are similar for both drugs and are those typical for immunotherapy, but less severe than those encountered with ipi.  As expected, the ipi/nivo combo has greater side effects than when nivo or pembro are used alone.  On the topic of side effects...they SHOULD be treated!!!  As quickly as possible.  At times, a break from medication and immunosuppressive drugs are required.  While oncologists not familiar with immunotherapy may fear decreased therapeutic response if steroids are used...the preponderance of the data indicates that THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!!  Clearly, one should not take immunosuppresive drugs unless absolutely needed.  Many patients require varying doses of steroids in order to tolerate necessary, life saving melanoma treatments  and go on to do well!  Further, folks with pre-existing autoimmune disease can be managed on immunotherapy and gain a response as well.  Here are a zillion reports on all of that jazz:  What to do about immunotherapy if you need steroids or have a pre-existing autoimmune disease?

Dosing:

When Pembro is used as a single agent = is dosed at 2mg/kg with max of 200 mg IV every 3 weeks - for one year as adjuvant, end point undefined for advanced melanoma patient.  Nivo as single agent = is dosed at 240 mg IV every two weeks or 480mg IV every 4 weeks - for one year as adjuvant, endpoints vary for advanced melanoma patients. When ipi is combined with nivo, response rates in melanoma rise to 50+%, though side effects increase as well - mostly due to ipi.  For the combo, dosage is:  nivo at 1 mg/kg followed by ipi at 3 mg/kg on the same day, every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then nivo alone at 240 mg q 2 wks or 480 mg q 4 wks. endpoint varies. Many patients cannot tolerate all 4 doses of the ipi/nivo combo due to side effects.  However, outcomes can be good even if you have to stop early. Here's a report from ASCO 2016:  ASCO 2016 - Nivo plus ipi, CheckMate 069 trial....18 month OS similar even if you stop meds due to side effects!!!  Further, the ASCO 2021 data (link above) notes "Clinical benefit response (CBR) after 1 or 2 doses of I/N may be predictive of long-term survival in advanced stage melanoma. Patients who have CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N may achieve a similar survival benefit with fewer doses of I/N."  Finally, most folks who cannot tolerate the combo can go on to tolerate nivo alone, once their side effects are brought under control with a medication break and/or steroids.  

   Anti-PD-1 (Opdivo) plus Anti-LAG-3 (Relatlimab):

In March of 2022, Relatlimab (an anti-LAG-3 drug) was approved in combination with Nivolumab for advanced melanoma patients in the form of a new drug combo - Opdualag.  Here is a report that covers lots of pertinent data- FDA approves Relatlimab plus Nivolumab (Opdivo) for advanced melanoma patients - the down and dirty on Opdualag!!!!

TARGETED THERAPY

At this point in melanoma, the only approved targeted therapy is for patients whose tumor is positive for the BRAF V600 mutation.  About 50% of melanomas are.  However, researchers are looking at drugs that could target other points in the molecular pathway of melanoma.  This diagram shows what I mean by "pathway"...

A Melanoma Molecular Disease Model (See the link below for credit and more info)

Here's just one example from March of this year:  What tangled 'paths' we weave: Nilotinib for KIT mutated melanoma and Buparlisib for the PI3K pathway in melanoma brain mets

But....for current purposes....I am focusing on the BRAF mutation.  Here's a post I made a bit ago that really breaks down what BRAF is, what it means in melanoma, and how the drugs work:  BRAF inhibitors for melanoma: Dabrafenib, Vemurafenib, Dabrafenib/trametinib combo. Answers!!!!!

Usually when we combine drugs, we end up with increased side effects. However, in the case of BRAF targeted therapy we now know that BRAF inhibitors should ALWAYS be given with a MEK inhibitor.  Strangely enough, when the combo is given, patients experience better response rates, DECREASED side effects, and DECREASED rates of tumor work-around.  The only exception is when MEK inhibitors are used as a single agent in specially mutated patients.

DRUGS, administration, and side effects:

BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) drugs include:  Vemurafenib (Zelboraf), Dabrafenib (Tafinlar), Sorafenib (Nexavar), and Encorafenib (Braftovi)
MEK inhibitors (MEKi) include:  Trametinib (Mekinist), Cobimetinib (Cotellic) and Binimetinib (Mektovi)

These drugs are administered orally.  So that's super cool.  Dosing depends on the particular drug.
Side effects include joint pain, rashes, extreme sun sensitivity, development of benign skin cancers, fevers and sometimes liver toxicity.

EFFECTIVENESS and tumor work-around:

For patients who are BRAF positive, BRAF inhibitors combined with a MEK inhibitor have impressive response rates, clearing tumors rapidly, and often completely, in about 70-80% of patients and are effective in the brain and body. However, those responses are not very durable, with most tumors learning to work around the inhibition in about 7-9 months. BUT!!!!  By using an "alternate dosing schedule" (one that is varied, rather than absolute with an 'every so many hours daily' dosing pattern), combining BRAFi with MEKi, as well as the development of the newer drugs that time can be stretched out a bit.  Furthermore, despite the statistics, there are some melanoma peeps whose melanoma has been successfully managed for years on BRAF/MEK combo's!!  Finally, some melanoma specialists use BRAF/MEK combo's in BRAF positive patients, to rapidly decrease the tumor burden, then switch the patient to slower acting, but more durable immunotherapy.  Picking which targeted therapy to use can be difficult.  Here are two posts that attempt to pull response rates and PFS out of the data ~

From 2018:   Well, okie dokie!!! BRAFTOVI/MEKTOVI (Seriously guys??? That's the name???!!!) Encorafenib with Binimetinib approved for melanoma.

From 2019:  BRAF/MEK combo's for melanoma analyzed ~

IMMUNOTHERAPY COMBINED WITH TARGETED THERAPY -

In 2020, the PD-L1 blocking antibody Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) combined with Cobimetinib (Cotellic) and Vemurafinib (Zelboraf) was FDA approved.  Here is a report from 2019 that links to other reports on combining targeted and immunotherapies and includes data from the early atezo/BRAFi/MEKi trials - Treating melanoma by COMBINING targeted therapy AND immunotherapy!

INTRALSIONAL (also referred to as 'intratumoral') THERAPY

Intralesional drugs include (but are not limited to):

T-VEC - also called OncoVEX, Imlygic, or Talimogene Laherparepvec - uses the herpes virus with GM-CSF and is the only intralesional currently FDA approved (2015)  However, the following (and others) have been used in clinical trials:
CAVATAK - derived from the Coxsackievirus
T-VEC - also called OncoVEX, Imlygic,  or Talimogene Laherparepvec - uses the herpes virus with GM-CSF
PV-10 - derived from Rose Bengal
HF10 - also derived from HSV
SD101 - a TLR9 agonist
IL-2 - see note above, is also being used

These drugs are injected directly into a relatively superficial melanoma tumor.  They have been found to be effective in not only eradicating the tumor into which they have been injected, but 'by-stander' lesions as well. Researchers feel that they have the most promise when they are combined with a systemic treatment like immunotherapy.  I summarized response rates, side effects, and pretty much everything else current about these drugs in these posts which include many links within them: 

From 2021 - Intralesionals for melanoma - some new reports

Out of ASCO that year - Intratumoral or Intralesional therapy for melanoma - again. Yep, AGAIN!!! ASCO 2021, here we go!

                                     -------------------------------------------
I hope this primer will continue to be a helpful jumping off point for those in need.  What has served me best in attaining effective treatment for my melanoma has been seeking out a melanoma specialist (or at least an oncologist who cares for many melanoma patients) and never being afraid to ask questions. Asking this question of my doctor may have been the most beneficial:  "What treatment would you recommend if it were YOU or your brother, sister, wife, father, mother.... in need?"

I wish you all my very best. Hang in there.  And as ever, with enduring thanks to the ratties! - love, c

P.S. If all the acronyms are driving you crazy, here's a post that defines at least some of them:  Melanoma abbreviations ~ and random thoughts on posting melanoma crap-ola....
P.S.S.  A sense of humor really does help!!  AND FINALLY - while not all inclusive, this post from 2019 includes a list of world class melanoma specialists:   Internationally renowned melanoma specialists:  - c

FDA approves Relatlimab plus Nivolumab (Opdivo) for advanced melanoma patients - the down and dirty on Opdualag!!!!

Finally, an additional FDA approved treatment for melanoma!!  With FDA approvals for the first immunotherapy and targeted therapy in melanoma in 2011, the addition of Nivo and Pembro in 2014, a few additional BRAF/MEK combo's in 2013 and 2018, T-VEC approved as an intralesional in 2015, immunotherapy approved as adjuvant in 2017, targeted as such in 2018 - that's been about it for new melanoma therapies.  I recently reported on study results for Relatlimab combined with Nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of advanced melanoma in February:  Relatlimab plus Nivolumab in advanced melanoma patients - better than Nivo (Opdivo) alone!  The main take-away from the data being:

1.  The combination of the anti-LAG-3 product relatlimab with anti-PD-1 agent Nivolumab provided better progression free survival than when melanoma patients with advanced disease were treated with nivo alone - "The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab."

2.  Nivo and Pembro when used as single agents are both known (through data collection over many years) to have an approximate response rate of 40%.  The second article in the link above addressing relatlimab combined with nivo notes (though tallied as PFS):  "Median progression-free survival was 10.1 months in the combination arm and 4.6 months in the monotherapy arm. After 12 months’ follow-up, progression-free survival rates were 47.7% in the combination arm versus 36% in the monotherapy arm..."  The ipi/nivo combo is recognized to have a response rate of 50%+.  The fourth article in this 2021 post - ASCO 2021 - Outcomes of treatments on advanced disease - Reasons for HOPE!!!!! - notes:  "In the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial, a durable and sustained clinical benefit was achieved with nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) and NIVO alone vs IPI at 5-y of follow-up (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS] rates: 52%, 44%, 26% and 36%, 29%, 8%, respectively)."  But, we know that PFS and OS is higher earlier on after treatment, so in the first article from this 2017 report - Do melanoma peeps with side effects to immunotherapy have a better response? - it notes:  " The 3-year OS rate of 63% is the highest observed for this patient population and provides additional evidence for the durable clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of advanced melanoma."

3.  Though the combo had greater side effects than when nivo was taken alone - "Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group."  - we know that about 40% of patients on ipi/nivo have to stop the combo due to side effects, with about 55% experiencing grade 3/4 adverse events. 

4.  This post reviewed the Relativity trial of relatlimab and nivo in 2021 - Something "new" in melanoma treatment???? Anti-LAG-3! Again....  Despite the new data and having been reporting on anti-LAG-3 since 2014, I think my summation there still stands:

My take:  It seems that the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab (Opdivo) has a response rate that is slightly less than that of the ipi/nivo (Ipilimumab/Yervoy and Nivolumab/Opdivo) combo which has proven to be around 50+ percent, but one that is possibly better than the 40% response rate when anti-PD-1 (nivo or pembro) is used alone. Perhaps the two most important things these (still preliminary - after all these years) reports tell us is that ~

1.  Side effects, that can be so devastating and difficult in the ipi/nivo combo may be much decreased in the relatlimab/nivo combo.

2.  For reasons we don't fully understand, melanoma responds differently to the same treatment in different folks.  For me, thus far, nivolumab alone was 100% effective.  Obviously that is not the case for most melanoma patients.  So having another effective immunotherapy combination, that may well be far less than 100% effective in all of us, may still be completely effective in some.

And, finally, as ever - the drug company did not see fit to configure the trial such that the new combo went up against the old one directly.  Why not BMS?  Why not????  Why not three arms?  One with nivo alone.  One with the ipi/nivo combo? And the third with relatimab/nivo?  WHY???

5.  We still don't have durability of response data to this combo - but I would presume (given the durability we know about responses to nivo) they would be good.

SOooooooooooooooo - there you have it - a newly FDA approved combo for melanoma dubbed - OPDUALAG!!!!  (Seriously, these names!  My word!)

Now, this:

FDA Approves Relatlimab Plus Nivolumab for Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

March 18, 2022  Krista Rosa OncLive

The FDA has approved the fixed-dose combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab (Opdualag) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients who are 12 years of age or older and who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma.1

The regulatory decision is based on data from the phase 2/3 RELATIVITY-047 trial (NCT03470922), which showed that the doublet (n = 355) resulted in a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months vs 4.6 months with single-agent nivolumab (n = 359; P = .0055).

“Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint inhibitor more than 10 years ago, we’ve seen immunotherapy, alone and in combination, revolutionize the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma,” F. Stephen Hodi, MD, director of the Melanoma Center and the Center for Immuno-Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, stated in a press release. “Today’s approval is particularly significant, as it introduces an entirely new combination of two immunotherapies that may act together to help improve anti-tumor response by targeting two different immune checkpoints — LAG-3 and PD-1.”

To be eligible for enrollment to RELATIVITY-047, patients had to have previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.

A total of 714 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the fixed-dose combination of relatlimab at 160 mg and nivolumab at 480 mg administered every 4 weeks vs single-agent nivolumab at the same dose and schedule.

Patients were stratified by LAG-3 expression on immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, BRAF mutational status, and AJCC v8 M stage.

The primary end point of the trial was PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and ORR per BICR. End points were tested in hierarchy, with PFS evaluated first, followed by OS, and then objective response rate (ORR).

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the arms. The median age of participants was 63 years, 41.7% were female, and 66.9% had an ECOG performance status of 0. The serum lactate dehydrogenase level was above the upper limit of normal in 36.1% of patients.

LAG-3 expression was 1% or higher in 75.2% of patients, and it was lower than 1% in 24.8% of patients. PD-L1 expression was at least 1% in 41.0% of patients, and lower than 1% in 59.0% of patients. Moreover, 38.5% of patients had BRAF-mutated disease, and 61.5% had BRAF wild-type disease. Lastly, 65.7% of patients had AJCC M stage of M0/M1any[0], and 34.3% had M1any[1].

Data presented during the March 2022 ASCO Plenary Series showed that at a median follow-up of 19.3 months, the median OS with the doublet had not yet been reached vs 34.10 months with nivolumab monotherapy.  Although this benefit was not found to be statistically significant, it was considered to be clinically meaningful.

Additional data showed that PFS rates continued to be higher in the doublet arm vs the monotherapy arm. At 12 months, these rates were 48.0%  and 36.9%, respectively; at 24 months, these rates were 38.5% and 29.0%, respectively.

Notably, PFS and OS benefit favored the doublet over the monotherapy across all stratification factors that were assessed.

In the investigative arm, the complete response rate achieved was 16.3%, the partial response rate was 26.8%, and 17.2% of patients experienced stable disease. Additionally, 29.6% of patients in this arm had disease progression.

The median duration of response had not yet been reached in both the relatlimab/nivolumab arm and the control arm. Moreover, the disease control rate achieved with the doublet was 62.8% vs 50.7% with the monotherapy.

Notably, fewer patients who received the doublet went on to receive subsequent therapy vs those who received single-agent nivolumab, at 40.8% and 42.6%, respectively. Specifically, fewer patients in the investigative arm received systemic therapy vs those in the control arm, at 32.7% vs 34.5%, respectively. Additionally, 11.8% of patients who received relatlimab/nivolumab went on to receive PD-L1 and/or CTLA-4 inhibitors vs 15.9% of those who received nivolumab monotherapy.

Specifically, 4.2% of patients on the relatlimab/nivolumab arm went on to recive nivolumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy), 4.2% received nivolumab monotherapy, 3.7% received ipilimumab, 1.7% received pembrolizumab (Keytruda) monotherapy, and no patients received single-agent avelumab (Bavencio); these rates were 6.7%, 5.6%, 5.3%, 2.8%, and 0.3%, respectively.

Additionally, 12.4% of patients on the investigative arm went on to receive BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors vs 14.8% of those on the control arm. Other subsequent treatment was received by 13.8% of those who received the doublet vs 12.3% of those who were given the monotherapy. Slightly more patients on the investigative arm received radiotherapy at 14.6% vs 12.3% on the control arm; however, more patients on the control arm underwent surgery, at 8.1% vs 7.0%, respectively.

The fixed-dose combination is associated with severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis with renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, myocarditis, and other immune-mediated adverse reactions; infusion-related reactions. The doublet is also linked with complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and embryo-fetal toxicity.

“While we have made great progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma over the past decade, we are committed to expanding dual immunotherapy treatment options for these patients,” Samit Hirawat, chief medical officer of global drug development at Bristol Myers Squibb, added in the press release. “Inhibiting LAG-3 with relatlimab, in a fixed-dose combination with nivolumab, represents a new treatment approach that builds on our legacy of bringing innovative immunotherapy options to patients. The approval of a new medicine that includes our third distinct checkpoint inhibitor marks an important step forward in giving patients more options beyond monotherapy treatment.”

An updated "Primer of Melanoma Treatments" to be posted soon.  Hang tough, peeps! - c

Intralesionals for melanoma - some new reports

I was a fan of intralesional therapies for melanoma long before they were used with any frequency in real live melanoma peeps! I first posted about Rose Bengal (the name I much prefer to the current PV-10) in 2012!!  Rose Bengal sustains high response rate in Melanoma patients!!!  These days the medications used intralesionally for melanoma patients has grown.  Even this list isn't comprehensive:

CAVATAK - derived from the Coxsackievirus
T-VEC - also called OncoVEX, Imlygic,  or Talimogene Laherparepvec - uses the herpes virus with GM-CSF
PV-10 - derived from Rose Bengal
HF10 - also derived from HSV
SD101 - a TLR9 agonist
IL-2 and IL-12 (tavo) -  are also being used

This link, including an update from June of this year, will give you - A zillion more posts on all things intralesional  Now, there are these ~

False positive FDG uptake in melanoma patients treated with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC).  Mulder, Stahlie, Verver, et al.  J Surg Oncol.  Jul 2021.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a genetically modified herpes simplex virus-1-based oncolytic immunotherapy and has been approved for the local treatment of unresectable (stage IIIB/C and IVM1a) cutaneous melanoma. During T-VEC treatment, tumor response is often evaluated using [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy- d-glucose(FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). In a Dutch cohort (n = 173), almost one-third of patients developed new-onset FDG uptake in uninjected locoregional lymph nodes during T-VEC. In 36 out of 53 (68%) patients with new nodal FDG uptake, nuclear medicine physicians classified this FDG uptake as "suspected metastases" without clinical or pathological confirmation in the majority of patients. These false positive results indicate that new-onset FDG uptake in locoregional lymph nodes during T-VEC treatment does not necessarily reflect progressive disease, but may be associated with immune infiltration. In current clinical practice, physicians should be aware of the high false positive rate of FDG uptake during treatment with T-VEC in patients with melanoma. Therefore, pathological examination of lymph node lesions with new FDG uptake is recommended to differentiate between progressive disease and immune infiltration after treatment with T-VEC.

Given the real (and wonderful) possibility of "by-stander response" - ie the positive response in lesions NOT injected when intralesional therapy is used - why oh why would you assume that uptake visible on scans is progression you silly silly radiology peeps???!!!!  Live and learn people!  Live and learn!

Durability of Complete Response to Intralesional Interleukin-2 for In-Transit Melanoma.  Khoury, Knapp, Fyfe, et al.  J Cutan Med Surg.  Jul-Aug 2021.

Background: Intralesional injection of interleukin-2 (IL-2) for in-transit melanoma (ITM) is associated with a high rate of complete response. However, there is a paucity of data on treatment durability and long-term outcomes.

Methods: Consecutive patients with ITM, treated with intralesional IL-2 therapy, at the Tom Baker Cancer Center were identified from April 2009 to August 2019. All patients received at least 4 cycles (every 2 weeks) of IL-2 (5 MIU/mL). Complete response was defined as sustained (ie, 3 months) clinical complete remission of all known in-transit disease.

Results: Sixty-five patients were treated with curative intent for in-transit disease with intralesional IL-2. Complete clinical response was identified in 44.6% (29/65). In this subset of patients, the median number of lesions per patient was 9 (range 1-40). The median total dose of IL-2 was 0.8 mL (IQR 0.4-1.5) per lesion. One patient received isolated limb infusion and 13.8% (4/29) received systemic immunotherapy as part of their initial management. At a median follow-up of 27 months (IQR 16-59), 34.5% (10/29) developed recurrent disease. Of these patients, 50.0% (5/10) presented with synchronous in-transit and distant metastases. The median time to recurrence was 10.5 months (IQR 5.8-16.3).

Conclusion: With long-term follow-up, 65.5% of complete responders have a durable response to intralesional IL-2 therapy. In this cohort of patients, local in-transit recurrence is most likely to occur within 12 months and is often associated with concomitant distant disease.

Treatment of in-transit melanoma metastases using intralesional PV-10.  Thompson, Saw, Dalton, et al.  Melanoma Res.  June 2021.

Melanoma in-transit metastases (ITMs) can sometimes be difficult to manage by surgical excision due to their number, size or location. Treatment by intralesional injection of PV-10, a 10% solution of rose bengal, has been reported to be a simple, safe and effective alternative, but more outcome data are required to confirm its value in the management of ITMs. Two hundred and twenty-six melanoma ITMs in 48 patients were treated with intralesional PV-10 supplied under a special-access scheme. By 8 weeks a complete response in all injected ITMs was achieved in 22 patients (46%) and a partial response in 19 patients (40%). Of 19 patients who had uninjected metastases, 3 (16%) had a response in these. The most common adverse event was transient localised pain in injected tumours. New ITMs developed in 25 patients within 8 weeks, and later in another 8 patients. Repeat injection cycles were given to 21 patients: 13 of these received repeat injection into partially responding or nonresponding tumours, 5 had new ITMs, as well as partially-responding lesions injected, and 3 received injection into new ITMs only. Twenty-two patients received subsequent systemic therapy. At 1 year 37 of the 48 patients were alive, 28 with melanoma, and at 2 years 27 were alive, and 19 with melanoma. Injection of PV-10 was simple and safe and resulted in tumour involution in most patients and sometimes in noninjected tumours. However, many patients developed new lesions; these were treated by further PV-10 injections or with alternative therapies.

T-VEC for stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma achieves high rates of complete and durable responses and is associated with tumor load: a clinical prediction model.  Stahlie, Franke, Zuur, et al.  Cancer Immunol Immunother.  August 2021.

Background: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a genetically modified herpes simplex type 1 virus and known as an effective oncolytic immunotherapy for injectable cutaneous, subcutaneous and nodal melanoma lesions in stage IIIB-IVM1a patients. This study set out to identify prognostic factors for achieving a complete response that can be used to optimize patient selection for T-VEC monotherapy.

Methods: Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma, treated with T-VEC at the Netherlands Cancer Institute between 2016-12 and 2020-01 with a follow-up time greater than 6 months, were included. Data were collected on baseline characteristics, responses and adverse events (AEs). Uni- and multivariable analyses were conducted, and a prediction model was developed to identify prognostic factors associated with CR.

Results: A total of 93 patients were included with a median age of 69 years, median follow-up time was 16.6 months. As best response, 58 patients (62%) had a CR, and the overall response rate was 79%. The durable response rate (objective response lasting greater than 6 months) was 51%. Grade 1-2 AEs occurred in almost every patient. Tumor size, type of metastases, prior treatment with systemic therapy and stage (8Th AJCC) were independent prognostic factors for achieving CR. The prediction model includes the predictors tumor size, type of metastases and number of lesions.

Conclusions: This study shows that intralesional T-VEC monotherapy is able to achieve high complete and durable responses. The prediction model shows that use of T-VEC in patients with less tumor burden is associated with better outcomes, suggesting use earlier in the course of the disease.

Much like every other treatment in the melanoma arsenal, intralesional therapy (no matter the type you choose) is not a 100% cure nirvana.  Still, to my mind, it is a valuable weapon available to melanoma patients with in-transit lesions and as a supplement to Stage III and IV patients being treated simultaneously with systemic therapy.  As ever, those with the lowest tumor burden do best.  And sadly, nobody does the Even Steven clinical trials I want to see, placing similar patients on the various intralesionals - with and without equivalent systemic therapies - and THEN comparing outcomes!!!!  Why not, oh brilliant researchers?  WHY?????

For what it's worth - c

Intratumoral or Intralesional therapy for melanoma - again. Yep, AGAIN!!! ASCO 2021, here we go!

Intralesional (intratumoral) therapies have come a loooooong way, baby!  I first began reporting on them in 2014.  Here's a link to a zillion articles and posts:  More than you ever wanted to know about intralesional therapy for melanoma! 

As I embark on posting the things I feel are important from ASCO this year, I will add articles I have been collecting on each topic.  We will start here, with all things intralesional ~ 

The following link takes you to a pretty good review of current state of the data regarding intralesional therapy.  PV-10, Toll-like receptor agonists (TLR's), Intratumoral oncolytic viruses - to include:  CAVATAK, Pexastimogene Devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), HF10, PVS-RIPO, and TVEC are covered.  Lots of interesting charts and trial results/status are covered, including data (when it exists) on combining these therapies with systemic treatments.   

Intratumoral Immunotherapy Update 2019. Hamid, et al. Oncologist March 2020.

And here:

An Update on the Role of Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) in the Treatment of Melanoma: Best Practices and Future Directions.  Larocca, LeBoeuf, Silk, et al.  Am J Clin Dermatol, 2020 Dec 21.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is the first agent approved for cancer in the emerging class of oncolytic viral therapies. While T-VEC was approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma in 2015, clinical utilization has been hampered by rapid changes in the therapeutic landscape of melanoma related to advances in both immune checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy, cumbersome logistics involved in T-VEC administration, biosafety concerns, and a perception that T-VEC has limited impact on uninjected, visceral disease. However, with further survival follow-up from the phase III OPTiM (OncovexGM-CSF Pivotal Trial in Melanoma), along with new real-world data and consensus guidelines on safe administration of oncolytic viruses, a roadmap for when and how to use T-VEC has been emerging. In addition, preliminary data have demonstrated improved therapeutic responses to T-VEC in combination with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with melanoma without additive toxicity. This review provides an update on recent data with T-VEC alone and in combination with other agents. The emerging data provide guidance for how to better utilize T-VEC for patients with melanoma and identifies critical areas for clinical investigation to expand the role of T-VEC in combination strategies for the treatment of melanoma and perhaps other cancers.

There is this:

Oligoprogression After Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Melanoma Treated With Locoregional Therapy: A Single-center Retrospective Analysis.  Comito, Leslie, Boos, et al.   J Immunother, 2020 Oct.

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have demonstrated a heterogenous spectrum of response and disease progression that may not be fully captured by conventional response criteria, such as a limited degree of progression, known as oligoprogression, which could benefit from local treatment. We retrospectively analyzed data from all patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, who received CPI between January 2006 and March 2018 at Royal Marsden. We enrolled 36 patients who experienced progression in a maximum of 3 metastatic sites, after achieving disease control from therapy with CPI, and were radically treated with the locoregional approach. We carried out Kaplan-Meier analysis to obtain progression free-survival post-first oligoprogression (PFS-PO1), overall survival (OS) post-first oligoprogression, and OS estimates. The median time to oligoprogression from the start of CPI was 12 months. At a median follow-up of 34 months, the median PFS-PO1 was 32 months, with 50% of patients not progressed at the time of the data cutoff. The median OS-post-first oligoprogression was not reached. At a median follow-up of 52 months (from the first cycle of CPI), the median OS was not reached, with 75% of patients alive at the time of analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that baseline American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IV M1a or M1b is associated with a longer PFS-PO1 compared with stage M1c or M1d. We observed that local therapy for oligoprogression after CPI can result in durable disease control, suggesting that locoregional treatment should be considered in patients being treated with immunotherapy. However, prospective evaluation, perhaps in randomized trials, is needed. 

And this:

Durability of Complete Response to Intralesional Interleukin-2 for In-Transit Melanoma.  Khoury, Knapp, Fyfe, et al.  J Cutan Med Surg.  Feb 2021.

Background: Intralesional injection of interleukin-2 (IL-2) for in-transit melanoma (ITM) is associated with a high rate of complete response. However, there is a paucity of data on treatment durability and long-term outcomes.

Methods: Consecutive patients with ITM, treated with intralesional IL-2 therapy, at the Tom Baker Cancer Center were identified from April 2009 to August 2019. All patients received at least 4 cycles (every 2 weeks) of IL-2 (5 MIU/mL). Complete response was defined as sustained (ie, 3 months) clinical complete remission of all known in-transit disease.

Results: Sixty-five patients were treated with curative intent for in-transit disease with intralesional IL-2. Complete clinical response was identified in 44.6% (29/65). In this subset of patients, the median number of lesions per patient was 9 (range 1-40). The median total dose of IL-2 was 0.8 mL (IQR 0.4-1.5) per lesion. One patient received isolated limb infusion and 13.8% (4/29) received systemic immunotherapy as part of their initial management. At a median follow-up of 27 months (IQR 16-59), 34.5% (10/29) developed recurrent disease. Of these patients, 50.0% (5/10) presented with synchronous in-transit and distant metastases. The median time to recurrence was 10.5 months (IQR 5.8-16.3).

Conclusion: With long-term follow-up, 65.5% of complete responders have a durable response to intralesional IL-2 therapy. In this cohort of patients, local in-transit recurrence is most likely to occur within 12 months and is often associated with concomitant distant disease.

And finally, there is this from ASCO:

Talimogene laherparepvec with systemic immunotherapy in melanoma: A real-world experience.  Behera, Chen, Song, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background: Talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) is an FDA approved oncolytic herpes virus for intralesional therapy in unresectable metastatic melanoma. Real world data is sparse regarding the efficacy of TVEC in combination with other systemic therapies used in melanoma. We present outcomes of the largest single institution observational study of the off-label use of TVEC in combination with systemic immunotherapy.

Methods:  Patients with metastatic melanoma receiving TVEC simultaneously with ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi/Nivo) or single agent immunotherapy (either nivolumab or pembrolizumab) were evaluated. The demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, responses to injected lesions and remote metastatic lesions were evaluated. Clinical documentation was used to assess improvement in injected lesion size; time points for initial response and best response were identified. Review of imaging by a radiologist was evaluated to assess responses in remote metastatic lesions.

Results:  A total of 67 patients receiving TVEC from 2016 to 2020 were evaluated, of which 50 remained evaluable after excluding Merkel cell carcinoma, patients on clinical trial, TVEC monotherapy or those on BRAF-MEK inhibitors, and patients lost to follow up. In total, 29 received systemic immunotherapy simultaneously with TVEC and had been followed for at least a year, with a median follow-up time of 34 months (range, 12-56). At the time of analysis, 14 of 29 patients were alive. 6 of the 29 patients had received prior lines of therapy. Four patients received Ipi/Nivo, while 25 patients received monotherapy including 9 on nivolumab and 16 on pembrolizumab. The median number of TVEC doses received was 6 (range, 2-55) with median average TVEC dose being 3.47 ml (0.5-4 ml). Median time to initial local response was 6 weeks, whereas time to best local response was 14 weeks. Overall response rate in the injected target lesions was in 19 (66%), with complete local response (CR) in 12 (41%), partial response (PR) in 7 (24%), and progressive disease (PD) in 8 (28%). The response rate in distant non-injected lesions was 4 out of 16 (25%), 2 of which had previously progressed on prior systemic therapy. Stable disease was observed in 8 (50%) patients, and progression of disease in 4 (25%). The 1-year overall survival rate in patients receiving TVEC with systemic monotherapy was 80%. Progression free survival at 1-year in the monotherapy group was 71.6%.

Conclusions:  This is the largest single institution, real world experience to our knowledge, which assesses the efficacy of TVEC in combination with systemic immunotherapy. Our cohort suggests that TVEC is an effective treatment in combination with systemic immunotherapy, with a better overall survival observed with combination TVEC and anti-PD1 than seen with historical data from clinical trials of anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

As this mix of reports suggests, intralesional therapy can be used in several ways - as a treatment for one stubborn or new lesion in a person otherwise responding to their therapy; as an add on to pembro (Keytruda) or nivo (Opdivo) for folks with a relatively low burden of disease; or full bore combined with the ipi/nivo combo for those with more advanced disease.  The response rates are not 100%, but they are something!  And we all know, every bit helps!

Gonna shoot for getting a post up daily til done with ASCO (family, work and general life obligations withstanding)!  My fearless and determined bestie had the tough job of going through ALL the ASCO reports!!  When searching for intel on TWO cancers, that task is NOT for the faint of heart.  I have gone through his collection and broken them down into topics.  The reports will follow the pattern I have used here:  Collected, but unshared articles, followed by the selection from ASCO 2021, with my thoughts in red. 

I hope they will be of some use to a few of you.  Take good care. - c 

KEYNOTE-695 Interim Data - Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) combined with TAVO (intratumoral plasmid IL-12 ~ tavokinogene telseplasmid)

In July of 2020 I posted on the combo of TAVO and Pembro here -  Intratumoral (intralesional) therapy and a new guy in town: IL-12 Plasmid Transfection (tavo) with pembro  That is:  "intratumoral plasmid IL-12 (tavokinogene telseplasmid; "tavo") electroporation combined with pembrolizumab".

Now there is this from November 2020 ~

OncoSec Announces Positive Interim Data from KEYNOTE-695 Trial in Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Refractory Metastatic Melanoma at SITC 2020

The report notes:

-- 30% overall response rate (ORR) and 6% complete response (CR) rate achieved 
-- 35% ORR achieved in patients with Stage IV M1c or M1d disease 
-- TAVO + pembrolizumab demonstrated durable responses for up to two years

TAVO + KEYTRUDA led to a 30% ORR in the first 54 out of 100 planned patients. This interim investigator assessed ORR is much higher than the primary efficacy endpoint for the study, which is a 20% ORR determined by blinded independent review.  The data were selected for a Poster Walk discussion and will be additionally presented in the virtual Poster Hall on Wednesday, November 11 and Friday November 13 and as part of a Company Symposium on November 11th at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC)'s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

"Achieving an overall response rate of 30% with several complete responses and no serious adverse events is extremely encouraging for checkpoint resistant metastatic melanoma patients who currently rely on systemic administration of immune-stimulating drugs  associated with severe toxicity. The data reported, in addition to its ease of use, demonstrate the potential of TAVO in combination with pembrolizumab as a next-generation intratumoral IL-12 therapy that can induce regression of both locally treated and untreated distant and visceral lesions," said Paolo A. Ascierto, M.D., Director of the Unit of Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy at the National Tumor Institute Fondazione G. Pascale in Naples, Italy.

Key highlights of KEYNOTE-695 include:

• Of the first 54 out of 100 planned patients ~

• ORR was 30% (95%CI [18.0%, 43.6%]) (16/54)

• Complete response rate was 6% (3/54)

• All responses were confirmed by scans taken no earlier than after 6 months on study

• 9% (5/54) patients had 100% reduction of target lesions

• ORR was 35% (n=6/17) in patients with Stage IV M1c/M1d disease

• ORR was 40% (n=6/15) in patients with prior exposure to ipilimumab

• Median duration of response (mDOR) is currently 12.2 months

• Median study follow-up was 13.5 months

• Excellent safety profile resulting from intramural treatment approach

• Only 5.4% Grade 3 treatment-related AEs

• No grade 4/5 treatment-related AEs

• This study enrolled rapidly progressing patients with a short interval of 1.2 months (median) between the last dose of anti-PD-1 and study treatment

Adil Daud, M.D., a  Professor of Medicine at The University of California, San Francisco, Director of the Melanoma Clinical Research, and lead author of the study added, "the TAVO-electroporation (TAVO-EP) delivery system works by optimizing cellular uptake of DNA-based IL-12 in the tumor microenvironment, leading to local, sustained production of IL-12 in the tumor, where it matters, with negligible systemic exposure.  This recruits and primes immune cancer-fighting cells in the tumor leading to systemic immune responses without systemic toxicity. The totality of the safety and efficacy data establishes TAVO-EP as a best-in-class intratumoral therapy."

Daniel O'Connor, Chief Executive Officer of OncoSec, added "Patients with recurrent metastatic melanoma are in great need of effective treatment options. We believe this data demonstrates not only strong levels of efficacy, but also very low treatment related adverse events with the TAVO + pembrolizumab combo. This, combined with its ease of administration to accessible lesions within minutes in an outpatient setting, plus TAVO's low-cost/simple manufacturing process and its off-the-shelf availability, build a strong case that the TAVO + pembrolizumab combination, in a real-world setting, could equip clinicians with more options for their patients."

Results are still not as good as those achieved with the ipi/nivo combo.  But, for those who can't tolerate that treatment or remain in need of additional treatment, this combo may be a viable option.  For what it's worth! - c

Intratumoral (intralesional) therapy and a new guy in town: IL-12 Plasmid Transfection (tavo) with pembro

I've been a fan of incorporating intratumoral/intralesional therapy into melanoma care for some time.  Here's proof:  A zillion articles on intralesional therapy

Now this ~

Intratumoral Immunotherapy-Update 2019.  Hamid, Ismail, Puaznov.  Oncologist.  2020 Mar;25.

Intratumoral immunotherapies aim to trigger local and systemic immunologic responses via direct injection of immunostimulatory agents with the goal of tumor cell lysis, followed by release of tumor-derived antigens and subsequent activation of tumor-specific effector T cells. In 2019, a multitude of intratumoral immunotherapies with varied mechanisms of action, including nononcolytic viral therapies such as PV-10 and toll-like receptor 9 agonists and oncolytic viral therapies such as CAVATAK, Pexa-Vec, and HF10, have been extensively evaluated in clinical trials and demonstrated promising antitumor activity with tolerable toxicities in melanoma and other solid tumor types. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1-based oncolytic immunotherapy, is the first oncolytic virus approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of unresectable melanoma recurrent after initial surgery. In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, T-VEC demonstrated a superior durable response rate (continuous complete response or partial response lasting ≥6 months) over subcutaneous GM-CSF (16.3% vs. 2.1%). Responses were seen in both injected and uninjected lesions including visceral lesions, suggesting a systemic antitumor response. When combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors, T-VEC significantly improved response rates compared with single agent; similar results were seen with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and other intratumoral therapies such as CAVATAK, HF10, and TLR9 agonists. In this review, we highlight recent results from clinical trials of key intratumoral immunotherapies that are being evaluated in the clinic, with a focus on T-VEC in the treatment of advanced melanoma as a model for future solid tumor indications.  This review provides oncologists with the latest information on the development of key intratumoral immunotherapies, particularly oncolytic viruses. Currently, T-VEC is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved oncolytic immunotherapy. This article highlights the efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of T-VEC both as monotherapy and in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review summarizes current knowledge on intratumoral therapies, a novel modality with increased utility in cancer treatment, and T-VEC, the only U.S. FDA-approved oncolytic viral therapy, for medical oncologists. This review evaluates approaches to incorporate T-VEC into daily practice to offer the possibility of response in selected melanoma patients with manageable adverse events as compared with other available immunotherapies.

And this ~

Phase II Trial of IL-12 Plasmid Transfection and PD-1 Blockade in Immunologically Quiescent Melanoma.  Algazi, Twitty, Tsai, et al.  Clin Cancer Res.  2020 May 6.

Tumors with low frequencies of checkpoint positive tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (cpTIL) have a low likelihood of response to PD-1 blockade. We conducted a prospective multicenter phase II trial of intratumoral plasmid IL-12 (tavokinogene telseplasmid; "tavo") electroporation combined with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma with low frequencies of checkpoint positive cytotoxic lymphocytes (cpCTL).

Tavo was administered intratumorally days 1, 5, and 8 every 6 weeks while pembrolizumab (200 mg, i.v.) was administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST, secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival and progression-free survival. Toxicity was evaluated by the CTCAE v4. Extensive correlative analysis was done.

The combination of tavo and pembrolizumab was well tolerated with adverse events similar to those previously reported with pembrolizumab alone. Patients had a 41% ORR (n = 22, RECIST 1.1) with 36% complete responses. Correlative analysis showed that the combination enhanced immune infiltration and sustained the IL-12/IFNγ feed-forward cycle, driving intratumoral cross-presenting dendritic cell subsets with increased TILs, emerging T cell receptor clones and, ultimately, systemic cellular immune responses.

The combination of tavo and pembrolizumab was associated with a higher than expected response rate in this poorly immunogenic population. No new or unexpected toxicities were observed. Correlative analysis showed T cell infiltration with enhanced immunity paralleling the clinical activity in low cpCTL tumors.

And finally, this ~

Insights Into the Molecular Mechanisms Behind Intralesional Immunotherapies for Advanced Melanoma.  Vidovic and Giacomantonio.  Cancers (Basel) 2020 May 22. 

 The incidence of cutaneous melanoma, a highly malignant skin cancer, is increasing yearly. While surgical removal of the tumor is the mainstay of treatment for patients with locally confined disease, those with metastases face uncertainty when it comes to their treatment. As melanoma is a relatively immunogenic cancer, current guidelines suggest using immunotherapies that can rewire the host immune response to target melanoma tumor cells. Intralesional therapy, where immunomodulatory agents are injected directly into the tumor, are an emerging aspect of treatment for in-transit melanoma because of their ability to mitigate severe off-target immune-related adverse events. However, their immunomodulatory mechanisms are poorly understood. In this review, we will summarize and discuss the different intralesional therapies for metastatic melanoma with respect to their clinical outcomes and immune molecular mechanisms.

For what it's worth.  Hang tough, ratties!!! - c

Reviews of T-VEC in melanoma patients: alone, with ipi or with pembrolizumab ~

I have been a fan of intraleional (also referred to as intratumoral) treatment - therapies that are injected directly into melanoma lesions - for a long time.  Here are a bazillion reports: Intralesional therapies for melanoma

While T-VEC is currently the only version with FDA approval, here is a list of some of the drugs most often used:
CAVATAK - derived from the Coxsackievirus
T-VEC - also called OncoVEX, Imlygic,  or Talimogene Laherparepvec - uses the herpes virus with GM-CSF
PV-10 - derived from Rose Bengal
HF10 - also derived from HSV
SD101 - a TLR9 agonist
IL-2 -  is also being used

Now this -

Patterns of response with talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone in metastatic unresectable melanoma.  Chesney, Puzanov, Collichio, et al. Br J Cancer. 2019 Jul 29. 

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has demonstrated efficacy for unresectable melanoma. We explored response patterns from a phase 2 study evaluating patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1c malignant melanoma who received T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Patients with objective response per modified irRC were evaluated for pseudo-progression (single greater than/= to 25% increase in tumour burden before response). Patients without pseudo-progression were classified by whether they responded within or after 6 months of treatment start; those with pseudo-progression were classified by whether pseudo-progression was due to increase in existing lesions or development of new lesions. Overall, 39% (n = 38/98) in the combination arm and 18% (n = 18/100) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response. Eight responders (combination, n = 7; ipilimumab, n = 1) had pseudo-progression; most occurred by week 12 and were caused by an increase in existing lesions. These data reinforce use of T-VEC through initial progression when combined with checkpoint inhibitors.

We already have this report from 2017:  T-VEC plus ipi vs ipi alone ~ along with additional T-VEC data...  where it is noted that:  "...quite promising is the combination of talimogene laherparepvec and pembrolizumab. In the phase IB ­MASTERKEY-265 trial of 21 previously untreated patients, responses were seen in 57% of patients, including complete responses in 7 patients, with no dose-limiting toxicities.⁹ This regimen is now in phase III trials."...

Now, this -

Response to the Rechallenge With Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) After Ipilimumab/Nivolumab Treatment in Patient With Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma Who Initially Had a Progression on T-VEC With Pembrolizumab.  Afzal, Shirai.  J Immunother. 2019 Mar 29.   Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is approved for unresected stage III-IV malignant melanoma. T-VEC has a direct cytotoxic effect and enhances the antitumor immunity of host cells. Immune checkpoints inhibitors also enhance the immunity of host cells by increasing the recruitment of antigen-presenting cells or activation and restoration of T-cell functions. Both type of therapies can potentiate the effect of the other therapy. We are reporting a case of T-VEC rechallenge who initially progressed on T-VEC with pembrolizumab but then responded to T-VEC rechallenge after intervening ipilimumab/nivolumab. An 83-year-old man developed a subungual lesion of the left thumb and found to have AJCC V. 7 stage IIIb melanoma. Few months later, he developed axillary lymphadenopathy and multiple subcutaneous nodules (AJCC V. 7 stage IIIc). The patient was started on intralesional rose Bengal and pembrolizumab. After 4 cycles of pembrolizumab with rose Bengal, a positron-emission tomography/computerized tomography scan showed the progression of disease. He was started on T-VEC intralesional injections with concurrent pembrolizumab, however, after 3 T-VEC injections and 2 more cycles of pembrolizumab, there was the progression of disease. Subsequently, ipilimumab/nivolumab was started and patient responded partially. Ipilimumab/nivolumab was held due to toxicity. Eight weeks from the last dose of ipilimumab/nivolumab, he experienced locoregional progression and was rechallenged with T-VEC monotherapy. The patient showed a significant response after second T-VEC injection and continued to show response 6 months since rechallenge. After, initial progression on T-VEC with pembrolizumab, intervening immune checkpoints inhibitors may favorably modify the antitumor immunity and potentiate antitumor effect of T-VEC rechallenge.

Cases like this are so difficult to understand - by the patient - poor soul, mostly - but also:  Did the rechallenge with T-VEC really turn the tide?  Or - did all the other therapies - or ONE of the other therapies - finally kick in and just needed more time to work?  We really can't say.  Patients who have experienced multiple therapies and then finally respond, hold the key to many questions.  I'm just not sure we know what exactly they unlock.

Then, this -

Final analyses of OPTiM: a randomized phase III trial of talimogene laherparepvec versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in unresectable stage III-IV melanoma.  Andtbacka Collichio, Harrington, et al.  J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Jun 6.

Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic immunotherapy approved in the US, Europe, Australia and Switzerland. We report the final planned analysis of OPTiM, a randomized open-label phase III trial in patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1c melanoma.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec or subcutaneous recombinant GM-CSF. In addition to overall survival (OS), durable response rate (DRR), objective response rate (ORR), complete responses (CR), and safety are also reported. All final analyses are considered to be descriptive and treatment responses were assessed by the investigators.

Of 436 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 295 were allocated to talimogene laherparepvec and 141 to GM-CSF. Median follow-up in the final OS analysis was 49 months. Median OS was 23.3 months (19.5-29.6) and 18.9 months (16.0-23.7) in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively . DRR was 19.0 and 1.4%; ORR was 31.5 and 6.4%. Fifty (16.9%) and 1 (0.7%) patient in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively, achieved CR. In talimogene laherparepvec-treated patients, median time to CR was 8.6 months; median CR duration was not reached. Among patients with a CR, 88.5% were estimated to survive at a 5-year landmark analysis. Talimogene laherparepvec efficacy was more pronounced in stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma as already described in the primary analysis. The safety reporting was consistent with the primary OPTiM analysis.

In this final planned OPTiM analysis, talimogene laherparepvec continued to result in improved longer-term efficacy versus GM-CSF and remained well tolerated. The final analysis also confirms that talimogene laherparepvec was associated with durable CRs that were associated with prolonged survival.

This is one of those studies that gets on my nerve.  We wouldn't have expected GM-CSF to do much better than it did!!!!  But, I guess it shows what T-VEC can do on its own.

And finally, this:

Intratumoral Immunotherapy-Update. Hamid, Ismail, Puzanov.  Oncologist.  2019 Nov 29.

Intratumoral immunotherapies aim to trigger local and systemic immunologic responses via direct injection of immunostimulatory agents with the goal of tumor cell lysis, followed by release of tumor-derived antigens and subsequent activation of tumor-specific effector T cells. In 2019, a multitude of intratumoral immunotherapies with varied mechanisms of action, including nononcolytic viral therapies such as PV-10 and toll-like receptor 9 agonists and oncolytic viral therapies such as CAVATAK, Pexa-Vec, and HF10, have been extensively evaluated in clinical trials and demonstrated promising antitumor activity with tolerable toxicities in melanoma and other solid tumor types. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1-based oncolytic immunotherapy, is the first oncolytic virus approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of unresectable melanoma recurrent after initial surgery. In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, T-VEC demonstrated a superior durable response rate (continuous complete response or partial response lasting greater than/= to6 months) over subcutaneous GM-CSF (16.3% vs. 2.1%). Responses were seen in both injected and uninjected lesions including visceral lesions, suggesting a systemic antitumor response. When combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors, T-VEC significantly improved response rates compared with single agent; similar results were seen with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and other intratumoral therapies such as CAVATAK, HF10, and TLR9 agonists. In this review, we highlight recent results from clinical trials of key intratumoral immunotherapies that are being evaluated in the clinic, with a focus on T-VEC in the treatment of advanced melanoma as a model for future solid tumor indications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review provides oncologists with the latest information on the development of key intratumoral immunotherapies, particularly oncolytic viruses. Currently, T-VEC is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved oncolytic immunotherapy. This article highlights the efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of T-VEC both as monotherapy and in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review summarizes current knowledge on intratumoral therapies, a novel modality with increased utility in cancer treatment, and T-VEC, the only U.S. FDA-approved oncolytic viral therapy, for medical oncologists. This review evaluates approaches to incorporate T-VEC into daily practice to offer the possibility of response in selected melanoma patients with manageable adverse events as compared with other available immunotherapies.

For those interested, here's a direct link to the abstract above:  Intratumoral Immunotherapy-Update 2019.

So - there you have it. NOW!!!  We need direct head-to-head comparisons of some of these other intralesionals (PV-10, CAVATAK, etc.) to T-VEC.  I also think it is clear that generally, intralesional therapy COMBINED with anti-PD-1 is the way to go - whether you are Stage III or IV.   But, that's just me...

Thanks, ratties.  You change the world! - c