ASCO 2017: Melanoma brain mets

Melanoma sucks great big green hairy wizard balls!  And when you add brain mets, you really have a pair!!!!  I have been yelling about treatments for brain mets for so long that I feel like Paula Poundstone, "I started writing because banging my head against the wall was starting to chip the paint!"  I wrote this post in 2014: Should melanoma brain met patients be allowed in clinical trials?
Along with this one:  Anti-PD1 in melanoma: T-cells, the brain, and EVERYWHERE ELSE!!!!
And this in 2015:  Yep! Immunotherapy can work in the brain

For far too long, folks with brain mets (and don't even think about leptomeningeal disease) have been EXCLUDED from participation in clinical trials!!!  Why????  You can keep them in their own arms... Pharma CEO Person!!!

Finally this study opened:  ASCO 2015: New trial for melanoma brain mets!!! Ipi and Nivo, followed by Nivo alone (CheckMate 204)  (Wait til you see what's below!!!)

First up:  Nivo alone vs ipi/nivo in folks with brain mets.... (hmmmmm...let me think.....):

A randomized phase II study of nivolumab or nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (mets): The Anti-PD1 Brain Collaboration (ABC).

2017 ASCO. J Clin Oncol 35, 2017. Long, Atkinson, Menzies, et al.

Background: Nivolumab (nivo) and the combination of nivo + ipilimumab (ipi) improve response rates (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with ipi alone in clinical trials of metastatic melanoma pts, but pts with untreated brain mets were excluded. [No SHIT!!!  And how many times have I yelled about this??????]   Brain mets are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in melanoma and their management is critical. We sought to determine the antitumour activity and safety of nivo and nivo+ipi in pts with active melanoma brain mets. Methods: This open-label, ph II trial enrolled 3 cohorts of pts naïve to anti-PD1/PDL1/PDL2/CTLA4 from Nov 2014 - Feb 2017. Pts with asymptomatic melanoma brain mets with no prior local brain therapy were randomised to cohort A (nivo 1mg/kg + ipi 3mg/kg, Q3W x4, then nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) or cohort B (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W). Cohort C (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) had brain mets 1) that failed local therapy (new +/- progressed in previously treated met), 2) were neurologically symptomatic and/or 3) with leptomeningeal disease. Prior BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) was allowed. The primary endpoint was best intracranial response (ICR) greater than/= to wk12. Secondary endpoints were best extracranial response (ECR), best overall response (OR), IC PFS, EC PFS, overall PFS, OS, and safety. Results: A total of 66 pts (med f/u 14 mo) were included in this analysis of total 76 planned; median age 60y, 77% male. For cohorts A, B and C: elevated LDH 48%, 58% and 19%; V600BRAF 44%, 56% and 81%; prior BRAFi 24%, 24%, 75%. Table shows RR, PFS and OS. ICR in cohort A treatment naïve vs prior BRAFi was 53% vs 16%. Treatment-related gd 3/4 toxicity in cohorts A, B and C were 68%, 40% and 56%, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions:  Nivo monotherapy and ipi+nivo and are active in melanoma brain mets. Ipi+nivo had reduced activity in pts who progressed on BRAFi. Pts with symptomatic brain mets, leptomeningeal mets or previous local therapy responded poorly to nivo alone. 

	A, ipi/nivo (n=25)	B, nivo (n=25)	C, nivo (n=16)
ICR %	44 (24, 65)	20 (7, 41)	6 (0, 30)
ICR (complete response)	16 (24, 65)	12 (7, 41)	0
ECR %	38 (18, 62)	26 (10, 48)	21 (5, 50)
6 Month PFS %	50 (33, 75)	29 (15, 50)	0
6 Month OS %	76 (59, 97)	59 (41, 86)	44 (25, 76)

So....in this report (using only treatment naive and asymptomatic patients)...not surprisingly...the ipi/nivo combo did best in treating folks with melanoma brain mets...as it does in melanoma patients' mets located elsewhere!

Remember the ASCO 2015 link above?  Here are the results of THAT ipi/nivo study:

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with melanoma (MEL) metastatic to the brain: Results of the phase II study CheckMate 204.

ASCO 2017. J Clin Oncol 35, 2017. Tawbi, Forsyth, Algazi, Hamid, Hodi, ...Postow, ….et al.

Background: Brain metastases (BMts) are a major cause of morbidity/death in MEL. We report the first efficacy data in MEL patients (pts) with BMts who received NIVO+IPI in study CheckMate 204. Methods: In this multicenter US trial, MEL pts with greater than/ = to 1 measurable BMt 0.5-3.0 cm and no neurologic symptoms or steroid Rx received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W x 4, then NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W until progression or toxicity. Pts with severe adverse events (AEs) during NIVO+IPI could receive NIVO when toxicity resolved; stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) was allowed for brain oligo-progression if an assessable BMt remained. The primary endpoint was intracranial (IC) clinical benefit rate (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD] for greater than or = to 6 months). The planned 90-pt accrual is complete; we report efficacy and updated safety for 75 pts with disease assessment before the Nov 2016 database lock. Results: Median age was 59 yrs (range 22–79). Median number of induction doses was 3; 26 pts (35%) received 4 NIVO+IPI doses and 38 pts (51%) began NIVO maintenance. Response data are reported at a median follow-up of 6.3 months. The IC objective response rate (ORR) was 56%; 19% of pts had a complete response. IC and extracranial responses were largely concordant. Rx-related grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 48% of pts, 8% neurologic, including headache and syncope. Only 3 pts (4%) stopped Rx for Rx-related neurologic AEs. One pt died of immune-related myocarditis. Conclusions: In CheckMate 204, prospectively designed to investigate NIVO+IPI in MEL pts with BMts, NIVO+IPI had high IC antitumor activity with objective responses in 56% of pts, CR in 19%, and no unexpected neurologic safety signals. The favorable safety and high anti-melanoma activity of NIVO+IPI may represent a new Rx paradigm for pts with asymptomatic MEL BMts and could change practice to avoid or delay whole brain RT or SRT. 

	global	intracranial	extracranial
Best overall response, n (%, 95% CI)
CR	2 (3, 0-9)	14 (19, 11-29)	4 (5, 1-13)
PR	40 (53, 41-65)	28 (36, 26-49)	33 (44, 33-56)
SD greater than 6 mo	5 (7, 2015)	6 (8, 3-17)	2 (3, 0-9)
ORR, n (%, 95% CI)	42 (56, 44-68)	42 (56, 44-68)	37 (49, 38-61)

Again we are looking at the results of the cream of the melanoma brain met crop: folks who are asymptomatic. Nevertheless, the report above makes it very clear that immunotherapy (specifically ipi/nivo in this case) works in the brain and the body, with 56% of patients attaining an intracranial objective response, 19% of patients attaining a complete response, with responses to head and body being proportional.  Side effects were sadly as expected.  And while response was attained using immunotherapy only (ie with NO radiation), I'm not sure that, "The favorable safety and high anti-melanoma activity of NIVO+IPI may represent a new Rx paradigm for pts with asymptomatic MEL BMts and could change practice to avoid or delay whole brain RT or SRT"  is a conclusion that can be so readily drawn.  (Especially since they just randomly throw in "whole brain RT"...something we KNOW provides no real benefit in melanoma and is used only in the most extreme cases.)

I am an odd duck in many ways. However, I (and my brain mets) have sat on both sides of this fence.  I had one brain met treated with SRS (stereotactic radiation) in April of 2010.  Before I could gain access to treatment, I developed another. Still, I was accepted into my Nivo trial, getting my first dose in December of 2010.  By the next set of scans, three months later, the met was gone...and this was without additional radiation and nivo only, at a dose of 1mg/kg.  Still....given the preponderance of the evidence, I would be hard pressed to choose to forego SRS should I develop another brain met..... 

Here are just a few reports: 
2015 - Why immunotherapy is good for lots of folks...not just those with melanoma and how radiotherapy may make it even better!

2016 - Nivo (Opdivo) with radiation = better for melanoma patients with brain mets

2016 - One more time....better responses when radiation is combined with immunotherapy

2016 - Brain mets in melanoma: Don't wait to add anti-PD1 to SRS!!! And....TILs correlates with extent of brain edema and survival time in patients with brain mets

2016 - Radiation and ipi = better responses than either alone!!! (AGAIN!!!)

2017 - SRS (radiation) better WITH ipi (immunotherapy) rather than AFTER in melanoma generally, and brain mets specifically

2017 - Efficacy of Pembro (Keytruda) in melanoma brain mets

2017 - Immunotherapy with SRS does NOT increase risk of radiation necrosis in melanoma brain mets!!!

Not to beat a "dead brain met" or anything...  I believe in moving with the times and evidence based practice.  IF we can attain an equivalent response by treating brain mets with ONLY immunotherapy as we can when immunotherapy is combined with radiotherapy...then I am all for it!!!!  However, the links above provide a great deal of data comparing results when we treat melanoma mets with and without radiation be it SRS or gamma knife.

Now, here's this (GKRS is gamma knife radiation and is basically equivalent to SRS, stereotactic radiation): 

Outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery with and without concurrent immune checkpoint therapy.

ASCO 2017. J Clin Oncol 35, 2017. Yang, Cercle, Yaeh, et al.  

Background: Evidence supports a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and radiotherapy. [Yep!!!]  In this single-institution study, we compared outcomes of patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (BMs) who received Gamma Knife Radiosurgery (GKRS) with and without concurrent immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). Methods: Using an IRB-approved protocol, we identified pts with melanoma BMs who received GKRS from 5/2000 to 8/2016. Treatment was deemed concurrent if patients had GKRS within 4 weeks of ICB. Irradiated lesion control, tumor growth rate (TGR; percent change in product diameters per month), distant brain control, overall response rate (ORR) by modified WHO criteria, best response, and overall survival (OS) were compared. Results: 28 pts were identified: 17 (34 BMs total) received GKRS alone; 11 (23 BMs total) received concurrent GKRS/ICB. ICB included: ipilimumab (n = 3), anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) therapy (n = 4), and combined ipilimumab + nivolumab (n = 4). In comparing baseline characteristics between the GKRS alone and GKRS/ICB groups: median age was 65 v. 59 years, proportion of males was 53% v. 73%, 41% v. 45% had prior neurosurgery, and median number of prior systemic therapies was 1 v. 0. There was no difference in irradiated lesion control (6-month control rate 86% v. 96%; n = 57, median TGR (-14% [range -100% to +61%] v. -20% [range -71% to 0%]; n = 42 lesions), or distant brain control (6-month control rate 68% v. 60%; median follow-up 8.6 months v. 8.0 months) with GKRS/ICB v. GKRS alone. The ORR with GKRS alone v. GKRS/ICB was 61% v. 47%, and the median maximum reduction in BM bidimensional measurement was -69% v. -45%. Median OS from the date of GKRS was not reached for the GKRS/ICB group and was 16.6 months for the GKRS alone group. Conclusions: There was no difference in local lesion control, TGR, or distant brain control with concurrent GKRS/ICB compared to GKRS alone, but the study was limited by small patient numbers and biased by closer follow-up in the GKRS/ICB group. OS was longer with concurrent ICB, likely reflecting the survival improvement with immune checkpoint inhibitors.  

These were not your pristine, 'Oops I have a brain met, who knew?', ratties. Most of these had already been in the trenches with prior neurosurgery and systemic therapy.  That being said, there was no difference in local control when radiation was given alone as compared to when it was given with immunotherapy.  However, overall survival median was not yet reached in those who got immunotherapy WITH radiation, but was only 16.6 months for those with radiation alone. The last sentence may well speak volumes. 

Finally, there's the BRAF/MEK inhibitors...which work on brain mets, too!!!

COMBI-MB: A phase II study of combination dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600–mutant (mut) melanoma brain metastases (MBM).

ASCO 2017. J Clin Oncol 35, 2017. Davies, Robert, Long, ….Flaherty, et al.

Background: CNS metastases are common and associated with very poor prognosis in pts with metastatic melanoma (MM). In the phase II BREAK-MB trial, D had clinical activity in BRAF V600–mut MBM. D + T has shown superiority over D alone in pts with BRAF V600–mut mm without MBM; however, efficacy of this regimen on MBM has not been characterized. Here, we report results from a phase II trial of D + T in BRAFV600–mut MBM (COMBI-MB). Methods: This open-label, phase II study evaluated D 150 mg BID + T 2 mg QD (Dabrafenib and trametinib) in 4 MBM cohorts: (A) BRAFV600E, asymptomatic MBM, no prior local treatment (Tx); (B) BRAFV600E, asymptomatic MBM, prior local Tx; (C) BRAFV600D/K/R, asymptomatic MBM, with or without prior local Tx; and (D) BRAFV600D/E/K/R, symptomatic MBM, with or without prior local Tx. The primary objective was intracranial response rate (IRR) in cohort A (null hypothesis, IRR less than/= to 35%). Secondary endpoints included IRR in cohorts B, C, and D; extracranial (ERR) and overall (ORR) response rates; intracranial (IDCR), extracranial (EDCR), and overall (ODCR) disease control rates; duration of IR, ER, and OR; PFS; OS; and safety. Results: 125 pts were enrolled (A, n = 76; B, n = 16; C, n = 16; D, n = 17). In cohort A, median age was 52, 53% were male, and 37% had LDH greater than ULN. At data cutoff (28 Nov 2016; median f/u, 9.0 mo), in cohort A, investigator-assessed IRR was 58% (IDCR, 78%), ERR was 55% (EDCR, 80%), and ORR was 58% (ODCR, 80%). Median duration of IR, ER, and OR was 6.5 mo, 10.2 mo, and 6.5 mo, respectively. Median PFS was 5.6 mo. Independent review supported these results. 6-mo OS was 79%; with 31 pts (41%) still in f/u, preliminary median OS was 10.8 mo. Efficacy in cohorts B, C, and D will be reported. AEs across cohorts (any, 98%; grade 3/4, 48%) were consistent with prior D + T studies; 10% of pts (8% in cohort A) discontinued due to AEs. Conclusions: In this first report of a phase II trial evaluating a BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination in BRAFV600–mut MBM, the primary endpoint was met. Promising IRR and IDCR were seen with D + T, but responses appear less durable than reported for mm without MBMs. No unexpected safety issues were observed. 

Again, no real news here.  BRAF/MEK inibitor combo's work in brain mets...much like they work in the body of those who are BRAF +, but responses are not durable.  However, when utilized strategically, they are an important part of our arsenal against melanoma.

I hope I have been able to share some needed information and made what is hard to wrap ones head around (I crack myself up!!!), a little more comprehensible.  However, at this point, my holy head is tired.  I think I'll go make a cute pink Polly top!!!  That should get a girl back on track!

Love and thanks to all the ratties.  We would know even less if it were not for you! - c

LATE NOTE:  The Edster found this video interview in which Dr. Long breaks down some of the data above:  Dr. Long talks brain mets as well as Dabrafenib and trametinib
Thanks, Ed!  You can look back to a discussion of dabrafenib and trametinib outcomes in a post from December 2016 if you're interested.  For what it's worth! - c

IPI/NIVO - results - in melanoma brain mets and long term follow-up in advanced melanoma

Yes.  I think the results ratties provided have finally gotten it through most researchers heads (though not the heads of all oncologists) that targeted therapy (via the BRAF/MEK combo for BRAF positive melanoma peeps) and immunotherapy WORK IN THE BRAIN!!!!  I have been reporting on this trial CheckMate 204 since 2015.  Now, there's this:

Efficacy and safety of the combination of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (CheckMate 204).  2019 ASCO.  Tawbi, Forsyth, Hodi...Hamid...Postow, Pavlick...et al. J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 9501)

Background: We previously reported efficacy and safety of NIVO+IPI in patients (pts) with untreated, asymptomatic, melanoma brain metastases (MBM) from the CheckMate 204 study. Here, we provide the first report of NIVO+IPI in pts with symptomatic MBM, and report updated data in pts with asymptomatic MBM. Methods:In this phase II trial, pts with  greater than/= to 1 measurable, nonirradiated MBM 0.5–3.0 cm were enrolled into two cohorts: (1) those with no neurologic symptoms or steroid Rx (asymptomatic; cohort A); and (2) those with neurologic symptoms, whether or not they were receiving steroid Rx (symptomatic; cohort B). In both cohorts, pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W × 4, then NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W until progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (CBR; proportion of pts with complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD]  greater than/= to 6 mo). As of the clinical cutoff date on May 1, 2018, all treated pts (101 in cohort A and 18 in cohort B) had been followed for ~6 mo or longer. Results: In this updated analysis of cohort A (median follow-up of 20.6 mo), the CBR was 58.4% (Table). In cohort B, pts received a median of 1 NIVO+IPI dose and 2 of 18 pts (11%) received all 4 doses. At a median follow-up of 5.2 months in cohort B, intracranial objective response rate was 16.7% and the CBR was 22.2%. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54.5% of pts in cohort A and in 55.6% of pts in cohort B (6.9% and 16.7% in the nervous system, respectively), with one death related to treatment in cohort A (immune-related myocarditis). Conclusions: In pts with asymptomatic MBM, our updated results show a high rate of durable intracranial responses, further supporting NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment in this population. Intracranial antitumor activity was observed with NIVO+IPI in pts with symptomatic MBM, but further study is needed to understand the biologic mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy and to improve treatments in this challenging population. Clinical trial information: NCT02320058

Intracranial response	Asymptomatic (Cohort A; n = 101)	Symptomatic (Cohort B; n = 18)
Best overall response, n (%)
CR	29 (29)	2 (11)
PR	26 (26)	1 (5.6)
SD ≥6 mo	4 (4)	1 (5.6)
CBR, % (95% CI)	58.4 (48.2–68.1)	22.2 (6.4–47.6)

While I am glad to note those responses, you would be hard pressed to convince me to go with ipi/nivo alone...given all we have learned about the positive response systemic therapy COMBINED with radiotherapy provides.  You can read a zillion articles on the combo here:  
Radiation for melanoma

I am not even going to try to note ALL the posts and discussions I have reported regarding the ipi/nivo combo!  We have long known that the 15% response rate to ipi alone and the 40% average response rate to either anti-PD-1 product alone jumps to around 50+% with the ipi/nivo combo.  Just put "ipi/nivo" in the search bar to read the history for yourself.  Now, there's this:

Long-term follow-up of CA209-004: A phase I dose-escalation study of combined nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with advanced melanoma.  2019 ASCO.  Akins, Kirkwood, Wolchok, ..., Postow, ...Sznol.  J Clin Oncol 37, 2019.

Background: We previously reported a 3-year overall survival (OS) rate of 63% with NIVO+IPI concurrent therapy in the initial phase I dose-escalation study for the combination, conducted in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma. Here, we report OS after 5 years of overall study follow-up and assess survival rates after stopping treatment. Methods: Adults with previously treated or untreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, received NIVO + IPI Q3W × 4 as mg/kg in one of the following cohorts: (1) NIVO 0.3 + IPI 3; (2) NIVO 1 + IPI 3; (2a) NIVO 3 + IPI 1; (3) NIVO 3 + IPI 3; (8) NIVO 1 + IPI 3. Cohorts 1-3 received maintenance with NIVO Q3W × 4, then NIVO + IPI Q12W × 8 at assigned doses; cohort 8 received NIVO Q2W for up to 96 weeks. Patients were followed for the primary endpoint of safety and the secondary endpoints of response and progression-free survival for up to 2.5 years, then for the survival exploratory endpoint for up to an additional 3 years, for a maximum study participation of 5.5 years. Results: At a median follow-up of 43.1 months in all cohorts (N = 94), the 4- and 4.5-year OS rates were both 57%. The 4-year OS rates for pts with normal (n = 58) versus elevated LDH (n = 36) were 62% versus 49%; for pts with wild-type (n = 66) and mutant (n = 24) BRAF tumors, 4-year OS rates were 54% and 61%, respectively. Following the last dose of study drug (for any reason), overall post-treatment 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 74%, 65%, and 56%, respectively; in pts who discontinued due to study drug toxicity (n = 32), post-treatment 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 84%, 75%, and 65%, respectively, and in pts who discontinued for disease progression (n = 30), these were 52%, 34%, and 24%, respectively. Conclusions: This updated analysis from study CA209-004 showed favorable survival outcomes with NIVO+IPI, regardless of BRAF or LDH status, and provided evidence of long-term survival following discontinuation of treatment in pts with advanced melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT01024231

Yep.  "...analysis from study CA209-004 showed favorable survival outcomes with NIVO+IPI, regardless of BRAF or LDH status, and provided evidence of long-term survival following discontinuation of treatment in pts with advanced melanoma."  NOW!  Let's make these numbers even better!!!

We are beautiful before, during, and after...

...the storm. ~ c

ASCO 2015: New trial for melanoma brain mets!!! Ipi and Nivo, followed by Nivo alone (CheckMate 204)

A multi-center phase II open-label study (CheckMate 204) to evaluate safety and efficacy of Nivolumab (NIVO) in combination with ipilimumab (IPI) followed by NIVO monotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma to the brain. J Clin Oncol 33, 2015. Margolin, Tawbi, Hodi, et al.

Brain mets develop in approx 50% of patients with metastatic melanoma.  (Median overall survival after diagnosis = 4 months.)  Nivo (a fully human IgG4 PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor antibody) and ipi (a fully human IgG1 CTLA-4 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody) are each approved as monotherapy for advanced melanoma. In an already completed Phase II study, ipi showed some activity in patients with melanoma brain mets.  This study builds on that. It is anticipated that 50% of enrolled patients will have had stereotactic radiotherapy. Patients with measurable melanoma in extracranial sites and with asymptomatic brain mets will be included.  Patients with leptomemingeal disease, history of whole brain radiation, autoimmune disease, or steroids ongoing will be excluded.  Patients will be given Nivo 1mg/kg with ipi at 3mg/kg every three weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivo along at 3mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity.  SRT for progression of a single brain met will be permitted.  

Here's the link to the study on clinicaltrials.gov

This trial is actively recruiting.  Sites so far in California and Pennsylvania.

This post includes links to prior studies where ipi and nivo demonstrated effect in the treatment of melanoma brain mets:  Ipi, nivo, the combo and radiation for melanoma brain mets

Given what we already know, this seems hopeful to me! - c

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