Showing posts sorted by date for query PD-L1. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PD-L1. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, April 28, 2022

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 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: 
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
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, April 2, 2022

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


An updated "Primer of Melanoma Treatments" to be posted soon.  Hang tough, peeps! - c
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, August 8, 2021

Scars Upon Thars and Exercise (data pertinent to cancer peeps) ~ what 57 years and scars can do!


I do not like my scars.  I do not like them on my thars.

I do not like white spots; littered on my back like dots. 

Even though you may not see, they are very much a part of me.

As someone with more than twenty surgical scars and lots of vitiligo, I have given some thought to what they mean to me, society, self esteem, strength, weakness, beauty.

In 2010, there was this:  I finally figured out why...

In 2012, I wrote new words to this little ditty - I feel pretty

I have been inspired by many.  There was this in 2013:  The light that shines.....despite cancer and its scars   This in 2014:  Real beauty? Way more than skin deep!!!!  And this, in 2018, after my second cancer.  No, not second round with melanoma - been there, done that, too - but a whole new crazy cancer diagnosis with multiple surgeries for THAT one!!!  SCARS are more than skin deep. The love that sees me through....  

Before we go any further ~ by way of a trigger warning for those not interested in looking upon gnarly healing surgical incisions ~ I give you this parting pic while you flip the script!!!!

There is no doubt about the beauty of the Jewel Weed!  It is also called "Touch me Not!" because once the flower has faded, a little spring loaded case, looking for all the world like a miniature pea pod, develops!!!  They burst open, spewing tiny seeds everywhere, when lightly touched!

Now....where were we?  Oh, yes - scars and exercise...

I have learned that it takes a minute to process things; all sorts of things.  The same is true for body reconfiguration!  Here is a pic of my grossly swollen abdomen after removal of surgical staples several weeks after my second surgery in September 2018 for ex-goblet cell adenocarcinoma of the appendix -

It's a complicated physiologic and psychological situation.  You have been changed AGAIN, despite every positive action you can possibly take, by circumstances beyond your control.  You look like crap.  You feel worse.  The thought of walking to the bathroom (which you're having to do every ten minutes) feels almost insurmountable.  Going for a run?  Impossible.  Or is it?  

On that day, it certainly was!  How bout after SRS (radiation) to a brain tumor and removal of the right upper lobe of my lung for melanoma?  Again, a big no!  But, with lots of love and encouragement, especially from my girlie, my path back to fitness was a glacial process that started here - Reading this...  Yep.  On May 11, 2010 after the traumatic insults inflicted on April 27 and 30th, I did 10 minutes on the elliptical.  It was slow, supervised and of the lowest level of exertion possible.  But, it was a beginning. Exercising while on the immunotherapy that followed was not easy.  Some days were better than others.  The arthralgias and fatigue were a real challenge.  Many days were like this:  I feel like....  Chemo after surgery for the adenocarcinoma was an almost overwhelming obstacle; as the treatment left me ill and weak.  For days after dosage it was impossible.  But, I kept trying!  In November, two months after surgery, small improvements were HUGE victories:  Ex-goblet cell adenocarcinoma, CAPOX, and the GBD's!!!!  Almost a year later, I finally made it back to Barre classes with my girl:  Sew and LIVE chaotically!! ~ An AMAZING #MeMadeMay Day 7!

So, why do I bother, especially since my desire to exercise on some days is decidedly low!!!?????  Maybe I'm just vain.  Maybe, as I've always been physically fit and exercised, I object to having that part of my identity removed.  Maybe I'm just stubborn.  As a medical professional I have certainly been educated regarding the benefits of exercise - there is far less morbidity and mortality among those who do.  Less disease generally - diabetes and cardiac disease particularly.  Ironically, less cancer!  You gain stronger bones and muscles, better mental health, longer life.  Clearly, regular exercise for the past 57 years has not prevented MY cancers!!!  Still, I know I would have never been able to endure some of the insults cancer and its treatments have inflicted had I not been as strong as I could be.  

In 2013 I published this article:  Jump up, jump around...and fire up those Natural Killer cells!!!  There have been others since about the benefit of exercise and my particular cancers.  Now, there's this:

Voluntary wheel running can lead to modulation of immune checkpoint molecule expression.  Bay, Unterrainer, Stagaard, et al.  Act Oncol.  2020 Dec.

Background: Exercise and physical activity (PA) are associated with reduced tumor growth and enhanced intra-tumoral immune cell infiltration in mice. We aimed to investigate the role of PA achieved by voluntary wheel running in promoting the immunogenic profile across several murine tumor models, and to explore the potential of checkpoint blockade and PA in the form of voluntary wheel running as combination therapy.

Material and methods: The experiments were performed with C57BL/6 mice bearing subcutaneous tumors while having access to running wheels in their cages, where key immunoregulatory molecules expressed in the tumor tissue were measured by qPCR. Furthermore, we tested the hypothesis that wheel running combined with PD-L1 -or PD-1 inhibitor treatment could lead to an additive effect on tumor growth in mice bearing B16 melanoma tumors.

Results: Wheel running increased immune checkpoint expression (PD-1, PD-L1, PD-L2, CD28, B7.1 and B7.2) in B16 tumor-bearing mice, while induction of only PD-L2 was found in E0771 breast cancer and Lewis Lung Cancer. In studies combining voluntary wheel running with PD-1 -and PD-L1 inhibitors we found significant effects of wheel running on attenuating B16 melanoma tumor growth, in line with previous studies. We did, however, not find an additive effect of combining either of the two immunotherapeutic treatments with access to running wheels.

Conclusion: B16 tumors displayed upregulated expression of immune regulatory molecules and decreased tumor growth in response to PA. However, combining PA with PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade did not lead to a further augmented inhibition of tumor growth.

Hmmmm......  There is also this:

Association of Survival With Adherence to the American Cancer Society Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines for Cancer Survivors After Colon Cancer Diagnosis: The CALGB 89803/Alliance Trial.  Van Blarigan, Fuchs, Niedzwiecki, et al.  JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 1.

Importance: The American Cancer Society Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines for Cancer Survivors (ACS guidelines) include maintaining (1) a healthy body weight; (2) physical activity; and (3) a diet that includes vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. It is not known whether patients with colon cancer who follow these guidelines have improved survival.

Objective: To examine whether a lifestyle consistent with the ACS guidelines is associated with improved survival rates after colon cancer.

Design, setting, and participants: This prospective cohort study included 992 patients with stage III colon cancer who were enrolled in the CALGB 89803 randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial from 1999 through 2001. Data for the present study were analyzed between November 2016 and December 2017.

Exposures: We assigned an ACS guidelines score for each included patient based on body mass index; physical activity; and intake of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and red/processed meats (score range, 0-6, with higher score indicating healthier behaviors). Secondarily, we examined a score that also included alcohol intake in addition to the other factors (range, 0-8). Lifestyle was assessed during and 6 months after chemotherapy.

Results: Of the 992 patients enrolled in the study, 430 (43%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 59.6 years. Over a 7-year median follow-up, we observed 335 recurrences and 299 deaths (43 deaths without recurrence). Compared with patients with a 0 to 1 ACS guidelines score (n = 262; 26%), patients with a 5 to 6 score (n = 91; 9%) had a 42% lower risk of death during the study period and improved disease-free survival. When alcohol consumption was included in the score, the adjusted HRs comparing patients with scores of 6 to 8 (n = 162; 16%) vs those with scores of 0 to 2 (187; 91%) were 0.49 for overall survival, 0.58 for disease-free survival, and 0.64 for recurrence-free survival.

Conclusions and relevance: Having a healthy body weight, being physically active, and eating a diet rich in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains after diagnosis of stage III colon cancer was associated with a longer survival.

SO...  Nothing is a sure thing.   But, the data is clear.  High veggie, low meat and alcohol diets with regular exercise are better for all of us - in lots of ways.  Have I prevented cancer in my life?  Obviously not!  But, I'm still here!  57 years and counting! So, after my run today... here are a couple of my scars ~

I ain't J Lo - BAHAHA! - still...  57 ~ what it do!

I do not like my scars.  I do not like them on my thars.

I do not like white spots; littered on my back like dots. 

Even though you may not see, they are very much a part of me.

Despite the lines upon my skin, they do not break the me within.

Strength is not just what you see, but how I deal with adversity.

I AM strong.  Scars be dammed.  I will determine who I am.

Be you.  Timshel.  ~ les

Posted by at 6 comments:

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

New trials for NRAS and Mucosal Melanoma patients - ASCO 2021

Melanoma sucks great big green hairy stinky wizard balls for everyone!  Still, it remains even more challenging for NRAS positive and mucosal melanoma patients.  Here are prior posts on Mucosal Melanoma. Now, there's this neoadjuvant trial:

A phase 2 clinical trial of neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 ab (toripalimab) plus axitinib in resectable mucosal melanoma.  Cui, Wang, Lian, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  The outcome of patients (pts) with resectable mucosal melanoma (MM) is still poor. Toripalimab combined with axitinib has shown impressive results in metastatic MM with an ORR of 48.3% and a median PFS of 7.5 months in a phase 1b trial. It was hypothesized that this combination therapy might cause pathologic response in neoadjuvant setting for resectable MM, so we conducted this single arm phase 2 trial.

Methods:  Eligible pts were adults (aged 18 to 75) with histologically confirmed resectable (localized or regional lymph node metastasis) MM disease. Exclusion criteria included ocular or unknown primary melanoma, distant metastatic disease or previous use of anti PD-1 ab. Pts received toripalimab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus axitinib 5 mg BID for 8 weeks as neoadjuvant therapy, then surgery and the adjuvant toripalimab 3 mg/kg Q2W starting 2±1week after surgery for totally 52 weeks. The primary end point is pathologic response rate according to the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (pCR+pPR, pCR is defined as the complete absence of residual viable tumor and pPR less than/= to 50% of viable tumor cells). The secondary end point is RFS in the ITT population.

Results:  From Aug 2019 to Dec 2020, 21 pts have been eligible and enrolled. Basic characteristics: median age 62 years; M: F 28.6% : 71.4%; primary sites 8 female genital(1urethra, 7vagina), 5 esophagus, 4 ano-rectal, 4 head and neck(3 nasal,1 oral), in which 47.6% localized disease (T3/4 60%), 52.4% regional lymphatic disease; Gene mutation: 4 cKit (1 amplification), 2 Nras,1 Braf (N581), 1mTOR. This therapy was tolerable with grade 3-4 treatment related AEs of 23.8% (liver dysfunction 14.3%, hyperglycemia 9.5% and hypertension 4.8%). 13 pts had received surgeries (local excision 30.8%, wide excision ± CLND72.7%)and 5 pts still in neoadjuvant treatment. One patient was inoperable for bone metastasis, and 2 pts withdrew for covid 19 epidemic. At a median follow up time of 59 weeks, the pathologic response rate was 28.6% (4/14, 2 pCR, 2pPR). Of the post-surgical specimens, 61.5% (8/13) showed significant TIL infiltration, with 38.5% Brisk and 23.1% Nonbrisk according to the definition of AJCC 8th edition. Plenty of plasma cells, histiocyte and pigment with hyaline fibrosis were also found in responders. No recurrence or metastasis was observed in responders until now, with a RFS reaching more than 58weeks. 5 pts with pNR (greater than 50% viable tumor cells) got disease progression, with 1 local recurrence, 1 regional lymphatic metastasis, and 3 distant metastases. The median RFS has not been reached.

Conclusions:  Neoadjuvant toripalimab plus axitinib in resectable MM has shown promising pathologic responses with good tolerance, which supports further investigation of neoadjuvant therapies in MM. Survival is still in follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT04180995.

And this report on patients with unresectable disease:

Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic mucosal melanoma: Interim analysis of an open-label phase II trial.  Si, Fang, Chen, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  Mucosal melanoma is a rare malignant melanoma in Caucasians but ranks the second most common subtype in the Asian population. It is more often diagnosed at an advanced stage and responds poorly to current PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Here we report the interim analysis results of ML41186, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase II study, aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in patients (pts) with advanced mucosal melanoma.

Methods:  Eligible pts aged 18 to 75 years with histologically confirmed unresectable locally advanced or metastatic mucosal melanoma had at least one measurable lesion per RECIST version 1.1 at baseline, with an ECOG PS 0 or 1 and adequate hematologic and organ function. ML41186 is a Simon two-stage design study, if 22 pts completed ORR evaluation and more than 3 pts respond in stage I, the study then continue to Stage II. Atezolizumab and bevacizumab were administered at a fixed dose of 1200 mg and 7.5 mg/kg Q3W respectively (on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. The primary endpoint is the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), duration of objective response (DoR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.

Results:  By the cut-off date of 9th September 2020, 35 pts has been enrolled, among whom 22 pts in the stage I analysis set has completed two efficacy evaluation, while 28 pts (full analysis set) has completed at least one efficacy evaluation. In ITT populations (n=35), mean age was 58.9 years with 10 (28%) pts had ECOG PS of 1. LDH level elevated in 9 (25.7%) pts. More than half pts (19, 54.3%) had metastatic mucosal melanoma, of whom 3 (15.8%) pts had more than 3 metastasis sites and 4 (21.1%) pts had liver metastasis. In stage I analysis set (n=22), the best confirmed ORR was 36.4% (17.0%-59.3%). Median progression-free survival was 5.32 months (1.58-not reached), and the best confirmed DCR was 59.1% (36.4%-79.3%). The median confirmed DoR was not reached ( 2.76-NR). In the full analysis set (n=28), the unconfirmed ORR was 42.9% (24.5%-62.8%). In ITT populations (n=35), 28 pts (80%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE) and 5 pts (14.3%) experienced at least one grade 3-4 AEs. Only one patient experienced AE leading to treatment discontinuation. One patient died of autoimmune lung disease.

Conclusions:  The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed promising benefit and was tolerable in pts with advanced mucosal melanoma. At the time of this interim analysis, the primary endpoint did not cross the futility boundary, thus the study will run into Stage II. Clinical trial information: NCT04091217.

The NRAS mutation has it's own challenges.  Here are prior NRAS Reports.  Now, there are these:

A phase Ib trial of belvarafenib in combination with cobimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumors: Interim results of dose-escalation and patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma of dose-expansion. Shin, Lee, Kim, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  Belvarafenib, a potent, selective RAF dimer (type II) inhibitor, exhibits clinical activity in BRAFV600E- and NRAS-mutant (NRASm) melanoma patients. The combination of belvarafenib and cobimetinib more potently and durably suppressed MAPK pathway output and tumor growth than currently approved BRAF/MEK inhibitors in RAS- or RAF-mutant tumor xenograft models. This interim results of phase 1b trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and anti-tumor activity of belvarafenib in combination with cobimetinib in dose-escalation and NRASm melanoma patients among the 9 indication-specific expansion cohorts.

Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors harboring RAS or RAF mutation were enrolled in the dose-escalation stage, and the recommended doses were explored in the indication-specific expansion stage. Patients in the dose-escalation stage were given belvarafenib (100–300mg BID) in combination with cobimetinib (20–40mg QD) and the dose of subsequent cohorts was decided by a traditional 3+3 design and safety profile. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability, to estimate the maximum tolerable dose, and to identify the RP2D of the combination.

Results:  A total of 32 patients enrolled were evaluated for safety analysis; 19 were enrolled in 4 cohorts in the dose-escalation stage and 13 NRASm melanoma patients were enrolled in the indication-specific expansion stage (cut-off date: 2020-7-24). There were 3 DLTs (G3 colitis, G3 diarrhoea, G3 nausea) in 2 patients at the starting dose of belvarafenib 200mg BID continuously and cobimetinib 40mg QD 21/7 schedule. Belvarafenib dose was escalated to 300mg BID with cobimetinib 20mg QD, which did not result in DLTs. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in ≥30% of 32 patients were dermatitis acneiform, diarrhoea, constipation, and increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. Two combination doses were explored in the indication-specific expansion stage. Out of the 9 indication-specific expansion cohorts, NRASm melanoma patients exhibited promising efficacy signal; 5 patients reached partial responses (PRs) out of 13, giving a response rate of 38.5%. Among them, 11 had been previously treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), including 5 (45.5%) who achieved PR. The median PFS was 7.3 months and 5 patients remained on the treatment at the cut-off date.

Conclusions: Belvarafenib in combination with cobimetinib showed acceptable tolerability and encouraging efficacy in NRASm melanoma, and in those with prior CPI treatment. Further research is ongoing in other cohorts (Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT03284502) and in NRASm melanoma (reference GO42273 by clinicaltrials.gov ID number). Clinical trial information: NCT03284502.

Fingers crossed that there will soon be viable treatments for all melanoma ratties.  For what it's worth - c

Posted by at 1 comment:

Monday, June 28, 2021

Adjuvant therapy for melanoma - a history, the latest from ASCO 2021 and a remembering...

 I have been screaming about the need for adjuvant care since I became Stage IV with a zapped brain met and surgically removed lung met in April 2010 and could not attain a position in ongoing ipi trials because I had "no measurable disease".  After yet another met (surgically removed) to a tonsil in October of that year, I did gain placement in the adjuvant arm of a nivo trial being run by Weber (then of Moffitt in Tampa) that December.  Here's the report on how I and my 30 fellow ratties did, published in 2014:  C'est moi!!! Results from the 33 ratties in my Nivolumb/Opdivo trial...published!  

Since then, both targeted and immunotherapy have been FDA approved as adjuvant treatments for Stage III and IV melanoma patients. Here is a post with a break down of the science and FDA approvals from 2020:  ADJUVANT therapy for melanoma!!!!!!!!!!!!!! State of the science....  Here are a zillion additional posts, filled with the science, data and rants: All things Adjuvant 

Now there are these reports from earlier this year:

Novel adjuvant options for cutaneous melanoma.  Dimitriou, Long, Menzies.  Ann Oncol.  March 2021.

Background: Patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma have a high risk of recurrence. As the outcomes for patients with metastatic disease have improved dramatically over the past decade due to systemic therapy, more recently so too have the outcomes of patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma with the introduction of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting.

Results: Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are currently deemed standard of care for resected stage III melanoma. For patients with stage IIIB melanoma, 2-year and 3-year recurrence-free survival is approximately 72% and 65% for nivolumab, 70% and 65.7% for pembrolizumab and 68% and 60% for dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively. For stage IIIC  melanoma, 2-year and 3-year recurrence-free survival is 60% and 53.5% for nivolumab, 60% and 54.3% for pembrolizumab and 59% and 47% for dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively. Adjuvant treatment is recommended for patients with stage IIIB-IIID melanoma, and may be considered for patients with stage IIIA melanoma. For resected stage IV, nivolumab is the only approved agent; however, recent results from a phase II clinical trial show promising efficacy for combined ipilimumab and nivolumab as well. Long-term data are required to determine which therapy has the greatest impact on overall survival. Schedules, delivery and toxicity are also important factors to consider when selecting adjuvant treatment.

Conclusions: Randomized studies of patients with resected high-risk melanoma have shown that immunotherapy or targeted therapy improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo/ipilimumab. In order to optimize these treatments, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as strategies to reduce treatment-related toxicities and overcome resistance, are required. 

Adjuvant Therapy of High-Risk (Stages IIC-IV) Malignant Melanoma in the Post Interferon-Alpha Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.  Christofyllakis, Pföhler, Bewarder, et al. Front Oncol.  Feb 2021.

Introduction: Multiple agents are approved in the adjuvant setting of completely resected high-risk (stages IIC-IV) malignant melanoma. Subgroups may benefit differently depending on the agent used. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of available options in the post interferon era across following subgroups: patient age, stage, ulceration status, lymph node involvement, BRAF status.

Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched without restriction in year of publication in June and September 2020. Data were extracted according to the PRISMA Guidelines from two authors independently and were pooled according to the random-effects model. The predefined primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Post-data extraction it was noted that one trial (BRIM8) reported disease-free survival which was defined in the exact same way as RFS.

Results: Five prospective randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The drug regimens included ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, vemurafenib, and dabrafenib/trametinib. Adjuvant treatment was associated with a higher RFS than placebo. Nivolumab/ipilimumab in stage IV malignant melanoma was associated with the highest RFS benefit, followed by dabrafenib/trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. The presence of a BRAF mutation was associated with higher RFS rates compared to the wildtype group. Patient age did not influence outcomes. Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy was associated with lower RFS in non-ulcerated melanoma. Patients with stage IIIA benefited equally from adjuvant treatment as those with stage IIIB/C. Nivolumab/ipilimumab and ipilimumab monotherapy were associated with higher toxicity.

Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy should not be withheld on account of advanced age or stage IIIA alone. The presence of a BRAF mutation is prognostically favorable in terms of RFS. BRAF/MEK inhibitors should be preferred in the adjuvant treatment of BRAF-mutant non-ulcerated melanoma.

Melanoma recurrence patterns and management after adjuvant targeted therapy: a multicentre analysis.  Bhave, Pallan, Long, et al.  Br J Cancer.  Feb 2021.

Background: Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown.

Methods: Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined.

Results: Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (±trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (±trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy.

Conclusions: Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.

And these out of ASCO:

Management of resected stage III/IV melanoma with adjuvant immunotherapy.  Johnson, Atkinson, Bhave, et al.  ASCO 2021. 

Background:  Adjuvant anti-PD1 therapy reduces the risk of recurrence in resected stage III/IV melanoma and is now standard care. Limited data exist beyond registration trials. We sought to explore the use of adjuvant immunotherapy in routine clinical practice.

Methods:  Patients (pts) from 11 Australian centres who received adjuvant nivolumab (nivo) for resected stage III/IV melanoma were included in this study. Efficacy, toxicity, surveillance, recurrence characteristics, management and further treatment outcomes were examined.

Results: 471 pts received adjuvant nivo between 8/2018 to 3/2020. 318 (68%) were male, median age 64y (range 17-94), 28 (6%) were AJCC v8 IIIA, 194 (41%) IIIB, 175 (37%) IIIC, 11 (2%) IIID, and 63 (13%) IV. 65 (14%) pts had in-transit only disease, 152 (37%) pts were sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB+) and only 9 (6%) of these had CLND. 128 (27%) had BRAF mutant (BRAFmt) melanoma. Median time from resection to start of adjuvant nivo was 1.8 months (mo) (range 0.2-4.0). Median FU was 17.5 mo. 256 (54%) pts completed 12 months of nivo, 86 (18%) ceased early for toxicity, 76 (16%) for disease recurrence, 25 (5%) other reasons (COVID-19 8, co-morbidities 7, pt choice 10); 28 (6%) pts were still receiving nivo at data cut. Median duration of treatment was 10.4 mo (range 0-16.8). 117 (25%) pts recurred; 76 (65%) while ON nivo and 41 (35%) OFF nivo (greater than 1 month after last dose, including 20 pts who stopped early for toxicity). 24 mo RFS was 69%. Median time to recurrence was 6.0 mo. 56 (48%) had first recurrence with locoregional (LR) disease only and 61 (52%) had distant +/- LR recurrence. Of those who recurred with LR disease only, 46/56 (82%) underwent surgery, 15/46 (33%) then had adjuvant radiotherapy, and 15/46 (33%) had ‘second adjuvant’ therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (15/21, 71% BRAFmt pts). 10/56 (37%) pts who recurred with LR disease subsequently recurred distantly. 58/80 (73%) pts received systemic therapy at either 1st or subsequent unresectable recurrence. For recurrences ON nivo, 18 pts received combination ipilimumab (ipi) and nivo (ORR 44%), 4 pts had ipi monotherapy (ORR 0%), 7 pts had anti-PD1 + investigational agent (ORR 57%), 11 pts had BRAF/MEK inhibitors (ORR 82%). 1 pt had PD with ongoing PD1 monotherapy. For recurrences OFF nivo, no patients responded to PD1 alone (n = 1) or with an investigational agent (n = 1), ipi+nivo (n = 3), ipi monotherapy (n = 4) or chemotherapy (n = 2); 6 pts received BRAF/MEK inhibitors (ORR 50%). 2-year OS was 92%.

Conclusions: Despite higher rates of discontinuation due to toxicity compared with clinical trial cohorts, the efficacy data appear similar. Most early recurrences are distant, and many with LR recurrence soon recur distantly thereafter. Second line adjuvant BRAF/MEK inhibitors are frequently used for resected LR recurrence. Both ipi+nivo and BRAF/MEK inhibitors appear to have activity after distant recurrence.

Final analysis of overall survival (OS) and relapse-free-survival (RFS) in the intergroup S1404 phase III randomized trial comparing either high-dose interferon (HDI) or ipilimumab to pembrolizumab in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Grossmann, Othus, Patel, et al.  ASCO 2021. 

Background:   We assessed whether or not adjuvant pembrolizumab given over 1 year would improve OS and RFS in comparison to high dose ipilimumab (ipi10) or HDI - the two FDA-approved adjuvant treatments for high risk resected melanoma at the time of study design.

Methods:  Patients age 18 or greater with resected stages IIIA(N2), B, C and IV were eligible. Patients with CNS metastasis were excluded. [SO OVER THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]  At entry, patients must have had complete staging and adequate surgery to render them free of melanoma including completion lymph node dissection for those with sentinel node positive disease. Prior therapy with PD-1 blockade, ipilimumab or interferon was not allowed. Two treatment arms were assigned based on stratification by stage, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative vs. unknown), and intended control arm (HDI vs. Ipi10). Patients enrolled between 10/2015 and 8/2017 were randomized 1:1 to either the control arm [(1) interferon alfa-2b 20 MU/m2 IV days 1-5, weeks 1-4, followed by 10 MU/m2/d SC days 1, 3, and 5, weeks 5-52 (n=190), or (2) ipilimumab 10 mg/kg IV q3w for 4 doses, then q12w for up to 3 years (n=465)], or the experimental arm [pembrolizumab 200 mg IV q3w for 52 weeks (n=648)]. The study had three primary comparisons: 1) RFS among all patients, 2) OS among all patients, 3) OS among patients with PD-L1+ baseline biopsies. 

Results: 1,426 patients were screened and 1,345 patients were randomized with 11%, 49%, 34%, and 6% AJCC7 stage IIIA(N2), IIIB, IIIC and IV, respectively. This final analysis was performed per-protocol 3.5 years from the date the last patient was randomized, with 512 RFS and 199 OS events. The pembrolizumab group had a statistically significant improvement in RFS compared to the control group (pooled HDI and ipi10) with HR 0.740 (99.618% CI, 0.571 to 0.958). There was no statistically significant improvement in OS in the 1,303 eligible randomized overall patient population with HR 0.837 (96.3% CI, 0.622 to 1.297), or among the 1,070 (82%) patients with PD-L1 positive baseline biopsies with HR 0.883 (97.8% CI, 0.604 to 1.291). Gr 3/4/5 event rates were as follows: HDI 69/9/0%, ipi10 43/5/0.5% and pembrolizumab 17/2/0.3%.

Conclusions:  Pembrolizumab improves RFS but not OS compared to HDI or ipi10 in the adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Pembrolizumab is a better tolerated adjuvant treatment regimen than HDI or Ipi10.  Clinical trial information: NCT02506153.

See study below! 

Propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab (NIVO) versus placebo (PBO) as adjuvant therapy for resected melanoma: A number needed to treat and overall survival analysis.  Weber, Poretta, Stwalley, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  The CheckMate 238 trial demonstrated that NIVO improved recurrence free survival (RFS) vs. ipilimumab (IPI). The EORTC 18071 trial demonstrated that IPI improved RFS and overall survival (OS) vs. PBO. The current study pooled data from these two trials to indirectly assess the RFS and OS of NIVO vs. PBO and the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for one additional recurrence-free survivor and survivor over 4 years.

Methods:  Patients with resected AJCC 7th edition stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma from CheckMate 238 (NIVO vs. IPI) and EORTC 18071 (IPI vs. PBO) were pooled together with inverse probability weighting to balance between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. NNTs were calculated for RFS and OS comparing NIVO vs. IPI and PBO over 4 years. To account for improved post-recurrence survival over time, a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for post-recurrence survival in the PBO arm of EORTC 18071 was performed.

Results:   A total of 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with NIVO, IPI, and PBO, respectively, were included. In the weighted samples, patients treated with NIVO had consistently higher RFS rates than those treated with IPI (HR [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.56, 0.85]) and PBO (HR: 0.49 [0.39, 0.61]). NIVO was associated with similar OS as IPI (HR: 0.80 [0.60, 1.08]) and superior OS compared to PBO (HR: 0.45 [0.33, 0.60]). At 4 years, the weighted RFS rate was 53.1% for NIVO, 41.8% for IPI, and 29.1% for PBO. The NNT to achieve one additional recurrence-free survivor was 4.2 for NIVO vs. PBO and 8.9 for NIVO vs. IPI. The NNT to obtain one additional survivor was 4.8 for NIVO vs. PBO and 22.2 for NIVO vs. IPI. The OS rate for PBO after adjusting for differences in post-recurrence treatments at 4 years was 64.1%, and the corresponding NNT of OS comparing NIVO vs. adjusted PBO was 8.5.

Conclusions:  In patients with resected AJCC 7th edition stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma, this indirect comparison showed that NIVO improved RFS and OS vs placebo, with OS improvement maintained after adjustment for post-recurrence therapy.

Like so much in melanoma, adjuvant therapy is not a sure thing.  Still, I am certain adjuvant nivo saved my life as a Stage IV patient spiraling into met after met in untenable physiologic locations.  

Thanks to all the mice and ratties who light our way.  I continue to hold ever so many, to whom my debt of gratitude will never be repaid, in my heart.  A few are remembered here ~ Oh, the people you'll meet...

And here:  Artie...a beautiful soul, an amazing knight. Merde!

And here:  Heavy heart, heavy lifting ~ for he was all of us...

I sill think of Steven, Joshie and all the others.  And today, news that I will never meet our dear Julie in person.  Even so, I will love her still, forever in appreciation of her wide smile, her incredible goodness and common sense.  I imagine she is looking down on us, from a beautiful vista, alongside her beloved camper that will never need repairs, on trips unspoiled by earthly troubles.  Be at peace, my dear friend.  We will always love you. Shalom. ~ les

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, June 25, 2021

ASCO 2021 - Outcomes of treatments on advanced disease - Reasons for HOPE!!!!!

 As disheartening as it can be to experience treatment that does not do all that we need it to or have dear ones who do not respond to current melanoma treatments - therapies for melanoma have come a long way, baby!!!!  Not only are more folks than ever before responding to therapy - these responses are proving durable!  Here are some outcome studies ~

Five-year overall survival from the anti-PD1 brain collaboration (ABC Study): Randomized phase 2 study of nivolumab (nivo) or nivo+ipilimumab (ipi) in patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (mets).  Georgina V. Long, Victoria Atkinson, Serigne Lo, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  Preliminary data from the ABC (76 pts) and CheckMate 204 (94 pts) trials showed that nivo and nivo+ipi have activity in active melanoma brain metastases, with durable responses in a subset of pts. Here, we report updated 5-yr data from all pts enrolled on the ABC trial (NCT02374242).

Methods:  This open-label ph2 trial enrolled 3 cohorts of pts with active melanoma brain mets naïve to anti-PD1/PDL1/PDL2/CTLA4 from Nov 2014-Apr 2017. Pts with asymptomatic brain mets with no prior local brain therapy were randomised to cohort A (nivo 1mg/kg + ipi 3mg/kg, Q3Wx4, then nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) or cohort B (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W). Cohort C (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) had brain mets i) that failed local therapy, ii) with neuro symptoms and/or iii) with leptomeningeal disease. Prior BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) was allowed. The primary endpoint was best intracranial response (ICR) ≥wk12. Key secondary endpoints were IC PFS, overall PFS, OS, & safety.

Results: A total of 76 pts (med f/u 54 mo) were enrolled; median age 59y, 78% male. For cohorts A, B and C: elevated LDH 51%, 58% and 19%; V600BRAF 54%, 56% and 81%; prior BRAFi 23%, 24%, 75%. Efficacy and toxicity are shown in the table. There were no treatment-related deaths. 1/17 deaths in cohort A & 4/16 in cohort B were due to IC progression only.

Conclusions:  Nivo monotherapy and ipi+nivo are active in melanoma brain mets, with durable responses in the majority of patients who received ipi+nivo upfront. A study of upfront ipi+nivo+/-SRS is underway (NCT03340129).Clinical trial information: NCT02374242.

My takeaway - Immunotherapy works for brain mets!  BUT - most folks need the combo!!!!

As was mentioned briefly in yesterday's post - the ipi/nivo combo can be a rough road in regard to side effects and a good 40% of patients cannot tolerate all of the approved doses.  However, as far back ASCO 2016 we knew that folks who had to stop therapy early due to side effects, responded about as well as those who completed all doses:  ASCO 2016 - Nivo plus ipi, CheckMate 069 trial....18 month OS similar even if you stop meds due to side effects!!!  This study wanted to see if those responses were durable ~

Survival outcomes associated with fewer combination ipilimumab/nivolumab doses in advanced-stage melanoma.  Ma, Sun, Sitto, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  Standard combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (I/N) is given as 4 induction doses for advanced stage melanoma. While many patients receive less than 4 doses due to treatment-related toxicities, it is unclear if fewer doses of I/N may still provide long term clinical benefit. Our aim is to determine if response assessment after 1 or 2 doses of I/N can predict long-term survival and if fewer doses of I/N can achieve similar survival outcomes.

Methods:  We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis on a cohort of patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma from 2012 to 2020 who were treated with standard I/N. Cox regression of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) models were performed to assess the relationship between response assessment after 1 or 2 doses of I/N and risk of progression and/or death. Clinical benefit response (CBR) was assessed, defined as SD (stable disease) + PR (partial response) + CR (complete response) by imaging or physical examination. Among patients who achieved a CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N, a multivariable Cox regression of survival was used to compare 3 or 4 vs 1 or 2 doses of I/N adjusted by age, gender, pre-treatment LDH level, BRAF mutation status, primary melanoma site, time to initial assessment, brain metastasis, and liver metastasis.

Results:  199 patients were identified and considered evaluable in our study. Median follow up was 28.8 months. Patients with CBR after 1 dose of I/N had improved PFS and OS compared to progressive disease (PD). Patients with CBR (vs PD) after 2 doses of I/N also had improved PFS and OS. The survival risk comparing 3 or 4 vs 1 or 2 doses of I/N were HR 0.82 for PFS and HR 0.56 for OS.

Conclusions:  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. Longer follow up and prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings.

Per this report, it looks as though those who showed benefit to therapy early, did indeed have similar survival, even when they took fewer that the 4 recommended combo doses!

This study looked at the characteristics of peeps who lived 5 years past immunotherapy for melanoma ~

Characteristics and probability of survival for patients with advanced melanoma who live five or more years after initial treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB).  Loo, Goldman, Panageas, …Chapman…Wolchok…Postow, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Methods:  We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering for unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who survived at least five years following their first dose of ICB (N = 151). Demographics, disease characteristics, and nature of progression were examined. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from 5 years post-ICB. Time to Treatment failure (TTF) was calculated conditionally from 5 years out until next therapy, progression, or death.

Results:  Of the 151 long-term survivors, median age at first ICB treatment was 62 years (range 22-83), with 101 (66.9%) male and 50 (33.1%) female patients. Stage at first ICB treatment was unresectable stage III (26, 17.2%), M1a (21,13.9%), M1b (39, 25.8%), M1c (52, 34.4%), M1d (13, 8.6%). Melanoma subtype was cutaneous (122, 80.8%), unknown primary (24, 15.9%), mucosal (3, 2%), and acral (2, 1.3%). First ICB was ipi (108, 71.5%), PD-1 (nivo or pembro) (5, 3.3%), and nivo+ipi (37, 24.5%). The best overall response to first ICB was CR (76, 50.3%), PR (27, 17.9%), SD (16, 10.6%) and PD (32, 21.2%). Of the patients who progressed after initial ICB, 38 received subsequent systemic treatment as follows: PD-(L)1 in 20 (53%), BRAF ± MEK in 9 (23.7%), ipi in 7 (18.4%), and chemotherapy in 2 (5.3%). Median duration of follow-up among survivors (N = 138) was 93 months (range 60-192). From 5 years post-ICB, 85% (95% CI: 73-92%) survived an additional 5 years. In those who made it to 5 years without treatment failure (N = 72), the probability of remaining failure-free was 92% (95% CI: 86-99%) at 7 years. Of the 151 patients, only 4 patients (2.6%) experienced disease progression after 5 years. Three patients had radiographic or pathologic disease progression in the lymph nodes and one in the subcutaneous tissue. No patients progressed in the lungs, visceral organs, or CNS after 5 years. At time of analysis, 13 (8.6%) patients died after 5 years post ICB, none died of progressive melanoma. 6 patients died of unknown causes, 2 died of other causes, and 5 died of other non-melanoma cancer-related causes.

Conclusions:  Patients who survive five years after their initial immunotherapy have excellent overall survival and treatment failure-free survival. Given the anxiety surrounding survivorship and late progression, long-term survivors should be reassured of their excellent prognosis. These data suggest that aggressive follow-up schedules and imaging of melanoma patients after 5 years of survival may not be required.

WHOOP!  WHOOP!!!  The C-word (NO!  Not cancer!  CURE!!) was not used, but this data on peeps 5 years out who may no longer need scans to follow up and can carry on with their lives is AWESOME!  On a personal note, Weber let me off the hook for continued follow-up for melanoma at 8 years post my Stage IV diagnosis. I am currently 11 years out.

This study looked at peeps treated with nivo alone vs the ipi/nivo combo.  Now we are blessed to look at 6.5 year outcomes. These reports would not exist without the lives and dedication of all the ratties; and sometimes a special mouse!!!  Thanks, Edster!!!!

CheckMate 067: 6.5-year outcomes in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma. Wolchok, Chiarion-Sileni, Gonzalez, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background: 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). Here we report 6.5-y efficacy and safety outcomes.

Methods:  Eligible pts with previously untreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio and stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. Pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W (n = 314), NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo (n = 316), or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo (n = 315) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were PFS and OS with NIVO + IPI or NIVO vs IPI. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), descriptive efficacy assessments of NIVO + IPI vs NIVO alone, and safety.

Results:  With a minimum follow-up of 6.5 y, median OS was 72.1 mo with NIVO + IPI, 36.9 mo with NIVO, and 19.9 mo with IPI (table). Median time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy was not reached with NIVO + IPI, 25.2 mo with NIVO, and 8.0 mo with IPI; 36%, 49%, and 66% of pts, respectively, received any subsequent systemic therapy. Median treatment-free interval (which excluded pts who discontinued follow-up prior to initiation of subsequent systemic therapy) was 27.6 mo (range, 0–83.0), 2.3 mo (range, 0.2–81.6), and 1.9 mo (range, 0.1–81.9) with NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI, respectively. Of the pts alive and in follow-up, 112/138 (81%; NIVO + IPI), 84/114 (74%; NIVO), and 27/63 (43%; IPI) were off treatment and never received subsequent systemic therapy; 7, 8, and 0 pts, respectively, were still on treatment. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 59% of NIVO + IPI-treated pts, 24% of NIVO-treated pts, and 28% of IPI-treated pts. Since the 5-y analysis, no new safety signals were observed and no additional treatment-related deaths occurred.

Conclusions:  This 6.5-y analysis represents the longest follow-up from a phase 3 melanoma trial in the modern checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy and targeted therapy era. The results show durable improved outcomes with NIVO + IPI and NIVO vs IPI in pts with advanced melanoma. We observed improvement in OS, PFS, and ORR with NIVO + IPI over NIVO alone. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505.

My takeaway - AGAIN - though nivo alone works for many (look at me!!) - BUT - data shows responses and durability were better with the ipi/nivo combo.  Way to rock it out, ratties!!  Thanks, dear Ed!

Finally, a non-ASCO report from earlier this year looking at folks who chose to stop anti-PD-1 monotherapy with nivo (Opdivo) or pembro (Keytruda) at 1 year of therapy ~

Real-world experience with elective discontinuation of PD-1 inhibitors at 1 year in patients with metastatic melanoma.  Pokorny, McPherson, Haaland, et al.  J Immunother Cancer.  Jan 2021.

Background: Randomized trials evaluating programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors in metastatic melanoma either permitted treatment for 2 years (pembrolizumab) or more (nivolumab). The optimal duration of therapy is currently unknown due to limited data, and shorter therapies may be effective.

Methods: Data of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma treated with single-agent PD-1 inhibitors at Huntsman Cancer Institute from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, was reviewed to identify a continuous series of patients who made the joint decision with their provider to electively discontinue therapy at 1 year (greater than 6 months and less than 18 months) in the setting of ongoing treatment response or disease stability. Patients were excluded if they received PD-1 inhibitors with other systemic therapy, had prior exposure to PD-1 therapy, or discontinued treatment due to disease progression or immune-related adverse event. Best objective response (BOR) per RECIST V.1.1 at treatment discontinuation, progression-free survival (PFS), and retreatment characteristics was analyzed.

Results: Of 480 patients who received PD-1 inhibitors, 52 met the inclusion criteria. The median treatment duration from first to the last dose was 11.1 months (95% CI 10.5 to 11.4). BOR was complete response in 13 (25%), partial response in 28 (53.8%), and stable disease in 11 (21.2%) patients. After a median follow-up of 20.5 months (range 3-49.2) from treatment discontinuation, 39 (75%) patients remained without disease progression, while 13 (25%) had progression (median PFS 3.9 months; range 0.7-30.9). On multivariable analysis, younger age, history of brain metastasis, and higher lactate dehydrogenase at the time of anti-PD-1 discontinuation were associated with recurrence. Patients with recurrent melanoma were managed with localized treatment, anti-PD-1 therapies, and BRAF-MEK inhibitors. All patients except one were alive at data cutoff.

Conclusion: In this large real-world, observational cohort study, the majority of patients with metastatic melanoma after 1 year of anti-PD-1 therapy remained without progression on long-term follow-up. The risk of disease progression even in patients with residual disease on imaging was low. After prospective validation, elective PD-1 discontinuation at 1 year may reduce financial and immunotherapy-related toxicity without sacrificing outcomes.

In my 2010, nivo as a single agent, phase 1 study, we took nivo for 2 1/2 years on a rather different schedule than is utilized currently (every 2 weeks for 6 months, then every 3 months for 2 years) and at dosages of 1mg/kg (my cohort), 3 mg/kg, and 10 mg/kg.  The 3mg/kg dosage is basically what is used today.  Still, even with all that, Weber often said that he felt we were treated too long and explained that while a certain amount of drug would be helpful, beyond that, benefit was nil and the risk of side effects was increased.  Today - whether we are looking at anti-PD-1 as a single agent or the ipi/nivo combo - researchers are still trying to figure out exactly what that "certain amount" is.  It is likely that the answer may vary person to person.  As this study pointed out, the ratties who elected to stop therapy at one year had experienced treatment response or stable disease.  Clearly, that is an important factor.  Additionally, in this rather small study of 52 patients, recurrence was associated with those who were younger, had a history of brain mets and elevated LDH when therapy ceased.  Interesting, in that I was 39 at diagnosis and 46 with brain mets at the start of my trial.  However, I took nivo for 2 1/2 years, never had an elevated LDH and have yet to have a melanoma recurrence.  So many variables.  So many different peeps.  It is a hard road to walk, much less to predict.

Hang tough, guys.  There is hope! - c  

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)