After progression on anti-PD1 / anti-PDL1 treatment of melanoma

While many patients attain a response to immunotherapy (about 40% to either anti-PD1 product and about 60% to the ipi/nivo combo) and many of THOSE responses are durable, it is clear that way too many patients are left with an inadequate response or progression after those therapies.  So, then what?  Here is a recent post containing reports on how to address that scenario:  How to deal with recurrence on or after anti-PD-1 as adjuvant or treatment for active melanoma disease

Now, there's this ~

Outcomes after progression of disease with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy for patients with advanced melanoma.  Patrinely, Baker, Davis, et al.  Cancer. 2020 August. 1.

Greater than one-half of patients with melanoma who are treated with antibodies blocking programmed cell death protein 1 receptor (anti-PD-1) experience disease progression. The objective of the current study was to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma that progressed while they were receiving anti-PD-1 therapy.  The authors evaluated 383 consecutively treated patients who received anti-PD-1 for advanced melanoma between 2009 and 2019. Patient and disease characteristics at baseline and at the time of progression, subsequent therapies, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival were assessed.  

Of 383 patients, 247 experienced disease progression. The median survival after progression was 6.8 months. There was no difference in survival noted after disease progression based on primary tumor subtype, receipt of prior therapy, or therapy type. However, significantly improved survival after disease progression correlated with clinical features at the time of progression, including normal lactate dehydrogenase, more favorable metastatic stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition stage IV M1a vs M1b, M1c, or M1d), mutation status (NRAS or treatment-naive BRAF V600 vs BRAF/NRAS wild-type or treatment-experienced BRAF-mutant), decreasing tumor bulk, and progression at solely existing lesions. After progression, approximately 54.3% of patients received additional systemic therapy. A total of 41 patients received BRAF/MEK inhibition (ORR of 58.6%, including 70.4% for BRAF/MEK-naive patients), 30 patients received ipilimumab (ORR of 0%), and 11 patients received ipilimumab plus nivolumab (ORR of 27.3%).   

The current study identified prognostic factors in advanced melanoma for patients who experienced disease progression while receiving anti-PD-1, including lactate dehydrogenase, stage of disease, site of disease progression, tumor size, and mutation status.

There is also this:

Patterns of failure after immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors predict durable progression-free survival after local therapy for metastatic melanoma.  Klemen, Wang, Feingold, et al.  J Immunother Cancer.  Jul 2020.  

Background: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, but most patients treated with CPI eventually develop progressive disease. Local therapy including surgery, ablation or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may be useful to manage limited progression, but criteria for patient selection have not been established. Previous work has suggested progression-free survival (PFS) after local therapy is associated with patterns of immunotherapy failure, but this has not been studied in patients treated with CPI.  

Methods: We analyzed clinical data from patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated with antibodies against CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1, either as single-agent or combination therapy, and identified those who had disease progression in 1 to 3 sites managed with local therapy. Patterns of CPI failure were designated by independent radiological review as growth of established metastases or appearance of new metastases. Local therapy for diagnosis, palliation or CNS metastases was excluded.  

Results: Four hundred twenty-eight patients with metastatic melanoma received treatment with CPI from 2007 to 2018. Seventy-seven have ongoing complete responses while 69 died within 6 months of starting CPI; of the remaining 282 patients, 52 (18%) were treated with local therapy meeting our inclusion criteria. Local therapy to achieve no evidence of disease (NED) was associated with three-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 31% and five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) of 60%. Stratified by patterns of failure, patients with progression in established tumors had three-year PFS of 70%, while those with new metastases had three-year PFS of 6%. Five-year DSS after local therapy was 93% versus 31%, respectively.  

Conclusions: Local therapy for oligoprogression after CPI can result in durable PFS in selected patients. We observed that patterns of failure seen during or after CPI treatment are strongly associated with PFS after local therapy, and may represent a useful criterion for patient selection. This experience suggests there may be an increased role for local therapy in patients being treated with immunotherapy.

Melanoma sucks great big green hairy stinky wizard balls!  Hang tough, peeps.  Hang tough! - c

Surgery After Systemic Treatment for Melanoma

 In this time of neo-adjuvant treatment for melanoma, two concepts are at odds with previous melanoma treatment plans.  

1.  The response to therapy may be better by actually leaving the tumor in place.  

2.  The premise that by waiting on surgery, the treatment may decrease the size of the lesion (and thereby diminish the size/damage from said surgery) or perhaps evaporate the lesion altogether so that surgery is not needed at all.  The impact of these new aspects of melanoma treatments makes decisions about surgery for melanoma even more complicated.  Here are zillions of reports about neoadjuvant treatment:  Neo-Adjuvant treatment for melanoma  That said - there are plenty of good reasons to have surgery to remove your melanoma lesions.  We know that, neo-adjuvant care aside, folks with the lowest tumor burden respond better.  We know that sometimes, one lesion remains persistently present even if all other lesions resolve.  Some patients will become NED after systemic treatment but later develop a lesion.  There are folks who haven't responded well to systemic therapy may need radiation and surgery to tackle their lesions.  The varied reasons for needing surgery are just as mixed as melanoma can be itself.  Still, there is a significant body of evidence indicating the benefit of the adage - "When in doubt, cut it out!" 

There is this from 2019 ~ Cut it out!!! Prolonged overall survival following metastasectomy in Stage IV melanoma

And this from 2020 ~ Surgical removal of melanoma lesions -

That said, there are these reports on varied circumstances that looked at surgery and melanoma patients:

Re-defining the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma in the era of effective systemic therapies.  Ch’ng, Uyulmaz, Carlino,…Long, Menzies.  Eur J Cancer.  Aug  2021.

Although previously the mainstay of treatment, the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma has changed with the advent of effective systemic therapies (most notably immunotherapy). Contemporary treatment options for patients with asymptomatic solitary or oligo-metastases include upfront surgery followed by adjuvant immunotherapy or upfront immunotherapy with salvage surgery as required. For suspected solitary or oligo-metastases, surgery serves both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Advances in radiological technology allow metastases to be detected earlier and surgery to be less morbid. Surgical morbidities are generally more tolerable than serious immune-related adverse effects, but surgery may be less effective. Upfront immunotherapy ensures that futile surgery is not offered for rapidly progressive disease. It also provides an opportunity to assess response to treatment, which predicts outcome, and may obviate the need for surgery. However, it is important not to miss a window of opportunity for surgical intervention, whereby if disease progresses on immunotherapy it becomes unresectable. In situations where local therapy is recommended but surgery is not desired, stereotactic radiosurgery may be an effective alternative. The decision-making process regarding upfront surgery versus immunotherapy needs to take place within a specialist melanoma multidisciplinary setting and be customized to individual patient and tumor factors. Ultimately, high-level clinical trial evidence is required to resolve uncertainties in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma but the complexity of the varying presentations may make trial design challenging.

Survival Outcomes of Salvage Metastasectomy After Failure of Modern-Era Systemic Therapy for Melanoma.  Li, Vakharia, Lo, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol.  Aug 2021.

Background: Metastasectomy for selected patients with melanoma was associated with improved survival in the era before effective systemic therapy. Emerging evidence shows that these benefits persist even in this era of BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of salvage metastasectomy after failure of systemic therapy.

Methods: Stage 3 or 4 melanoma patients with extracranial disease progression after at least 4 weeks of systemic treatment between 2009 and 2020 were identified and categorized as resected to no evidence of disease (NED), non-progressive residual disease (NPRD), or progressive residual disease (PRD). Systemic therapy was stratified into BRAF-targeted therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, or both. The end points of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and locoregional disease control (LRC) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression procedures were used to examine factors associated with OS, PFS and LRC.

Results: The study enrolled 190 patients. Among all the patients, the 5-year OS from metastatectomy was 52%, the 3-year PFS was 21%, and the 5-year LRC was 61%. After resection to NED, NPRD, and PRD, the 5-year OS values were 69%, 62% and 8%, respectively. Fewer lines of preoperative therapy, use of preoperative immunotherapy, and resection to NED were predictors of improved OS. After resection to NED, NPRD, and PRD, the 3-year PFS values were 23%, 24% and 10%, and the 5-year LRC values were 61%, 72% and 34%, respectively.

Conclusions: Salvage metastasectomy was associated with durable survival and disease control, particularly after resection to NED, preoperative immunotherapy, and fewer lines of preoperative systemic therapy

The role of local therapy in the treatment of solitary melanoma progression on immune checkpoint inhibition: A multicentre retrospective analysis.  Versluis, Hendriks , Weppler, et al..  Eur J Cancer. 2021 Jul.

Introduction: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma.

Patients and methods: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation.

Results: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone, without OS differences.

Conclusion: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes.

For what it's worth!!  Hang tough.  Melanoma is never easy, but there is hope. - c

Ipilimumab or ipi/nivo combo after recurrence in patients previously treated with immunotherapy ~

How to treat a melanoma recurrence when you have already been treated with ipi or anti-PD-1 (nivo/Opdivo or pembro/Keytruda) as single agents or the ipi/nivo combo has been a question for sometime now.  From 2017 there were these:

Response to ipi or ipi/nivo after failing anti-PD1 as single agent in Stage IV melanoma

ASCO 2017: Nivo or Ipi/Nivo combo in melanoma after progression on ipi or anti-PD-1

ASCO 2017: ipi plus pembro, ipi after pembro and identifying markers for outcome with pembro for advanced melanoma

There was this in 2020:  How to deal with recurrence on or after anti-PD-1 as adjuvant or treatment for active melanoma disease

And also, this:  After progression on anti-PD1 / anti-PDL1 treatment of melanoma

Now, there are these:

Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.  Da Silva, Ahmed, Reijers, et al.  Lancet Oncol.  June 2021.

Background: Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1).

Methods: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged greater/= to 18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1.

Findings: We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months, the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 of 162 patients). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis.

Interpretation: In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma. 

In this report, it is evident that the ipi/nivo combo did better as follow-up to progression on anti-PD-1 as a single agent, than the response that was provided by ipi alone.

Now, what to do if you took the combo from the start?

Re-induction ipilimumab following acquired resistance to combination ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 therapy.  Hepner, Atkinson, Larkin, et al.  Eur J Cancer.  Aug 2021.

Purpose: Combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab has a high initial response rate in advanced melanoma; however, up to 55% of patients later progress. The efficacy and safety of ipilimumab re-induction in the setting of acquired resistance (AR) to combination immunotherapy is unknown.

Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma who initially achieved a complete response, partial response or sustained stable disease to induction combination immunotherapy then progressed and were reinduced with ipilimumab (alone or in combination with anti-PD-1) and were analysed retrospectively. Demographics, disease characteristics, efficacy and toxicity were examined.

Results: Forty-seven patients were identified from 12 centres. The response rate to reinduction therapy was 12/47 (26%), and disease control rate was 21/47 (45%). Responses appeared more frequent in patients who developed AR after ceasing induction immunotherapy (30% vs. 18%). Time to AR was 11 months. After a median follow-up of 16 months, responders to reinduction had a median progression-free survival of 14 months, and in the whole cohort, the median overall survival from reinduction was 17 months. Twenty-seven (58%) immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were reported; 18 (38%) were grade 3/4, and in 11 of 27 (40%), the same irAE observed during induction therapy recurred.

Conclusions: Reinduction with ipilimumab ± anti-PD-1 has modest clinical activity. Clinicians should be attentive to the risk of irAEs, including recurrence of irAEs that occurred during induction therapy. Future studies are necessary to determine best management after resistance to combination immunotherapy.

This report notes that despite failing the ipi/nivo combo, a repeated course can provide response and disease control.

Here's something to consider if serious adverse reactions have been an impediment to repeating treatment using immunotherapy ~

Low-dose ipilimumab combined with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma following anti-PD-1 treatment failure.  Klee, Kurzhals, Hagelstein, et al.  Melanoma Res. July 2021.

Combined immunotherapy is associated with a significant risk of severe and potentially fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed the side profile and efficacy of low-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg, IPI1) combined with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in patients who progressed after anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Nine patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma treated with combined low-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg, IPI1) and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, following progression after anti-PD-1 treatment, were identified. Treatment response and irAEs were recorded. Grade 3 irAEs occurred in one-third of patients. Interestingly, there were no grade 4 or 5 irAEs. In fact, four out of the nine patients experienced no irAEs at all. One patient discontinued combined immunotherapy due to immune-related colitis. The mean time to the onset of grade 3 irAEs was 14.3 weeks. The objective response rate was 33.3% and a disease control rate of 66.7% was achieved. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months and median overall survival (OS) was 21.6 months. The median PFS when IPI1 and anti-PD-1 treatment was administered in the second-line setting was not reached, but only 2.8 months when used in subsequent treatment settings. Combined IPI1 and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was well tolerated. Its use in the third-line or above setting was associated with a significantly poorer prognosis than in the second-line setting. Larger, prospective studies are required to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this dosing regimen following anti-PD-1 treatment failure.

After progressing on anti-PD-1, these patients were treated with a low dose ipi/usual dose nivo combo.  Side effects were decreased and responses were attained.

Hang tough, peeps.  Melanoma doesn't make it easy, but there is hope.  - c

T-VEC in melanoma, after progression on immunotherapy and BRAFi with good results! 3 case reports...

I have been a fan of intralesional (also called intratumoral) therapies for some time...esp in combination with systemic therapy, noting in a prior report ~ "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."

These drugs include:  T-VEC, PV-10, CAVATAK, HF10, SD101 and IMO-2125 (both TLR agonists), ISF35 (a CD40 agonist), and even IL2 has been used in this fashion.  Here's a link to bunches of reports on all of these:  ALL the intralesionals!!!

Here are multiple reports on T-VEC in particular:  All things T-VEC (talimogene laherparepvec)

Now...here are three case reports on melanoma peeps who had failed multiple therapies but gained a response with T-VEC...

Potential clinical and immunotherapeutic utility of talimogene laherparepvec for patients with melanoma after disease progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF inhibitors. Chesney, Imbert-Fernandea, Telang, et al. Melanoma Res. March 20, 2018.

Talimogene laherparepvec is a genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1-based oncolytic immunotherapy for the local treatment of unresectable subcutaneous and nodal tumors in patients with melanoma recurrent after initial surgery. We report on two patients with melanoma who, after progression on numerous systemic therapies, derived clinical benefit from talimogene laherparepvec in an expanded-access protocol. Intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (day 1, greater than/= to 4 ml 10 PFU/ml; after 3 weeks, greater than/= to 4 ml 10 PFU/ml every 2 weeks) was administered until complete response, no injectable tumors, progressive disease, or intolerance occurred. Patient 1 was 71 years old, had stage IIIB disease, and had previously received granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, vemurafenib, metformin, ipilimumab, dabrafenib, trametinib, and pembrolizumab. Patient 2 was 45 years old, had stage IIIC disease, and had previously received nivolumab/ipilimumab combination therapy. There were marked reductions in the number and size of melanoma lesions during treatment with talimogene laherparepvec. Both patients experienced mild-to-moderate nausea and vomiting, which were managed using ondansetron, metoclopramide, and pantoprazole. Both patients completed treatment with talimogene laherparepvec in the expanded-access protocol on 24 November 2015, but received talimogene laherparepvec in clinical practice. Patient 1 continues to receive therapy (greater than 60 weeks); patient 2 experienced a complete response at 23 weeks. Immunohistochemistry of a biopsied dermal metastasis from patient 1 showed a marked infiltration of CD4 and CD8 T cells after 1 year of treatment. Talimogene laherparepvec was active in patients with advanced melanoma with disease progression following multiple previous systemic therapies; no new safety signals were identified.

...and the final peep....

Complete intracranial response to talimogene laherparepvec (T-Vec), pembrolizumab and whole brain radiotherapy in a patient with melanoma brain metastases refractory to dual checkpoint-inhibition. Blake, Marks, Gartrell, et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Apr 6.

Immunotherapy, in particular checkpoint blockade, has changed the clinical landscape of metastatic melanoma. Nonetheless, the majority of patients will either be primary refractory or progress over follow up. Management of patients progressing on first-line immunotherapy remains challenging. Expanded treatment options with combination immunotherapy has demonstrated efficacy in patients previously unresponsive to single agent or alternative combination therapy.

We describe the case of a patient with diffusely metastatic melanoma, including brain metastases, who, despite being treated with stereotactic radiosurgery and dual CTLA-4/PD-1 blockade (ipilimumab/nivolumab), developed systemic disease progression and innumerable brain metastases. This patient achieved a complete CNS response and partial systemic response with standard whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) combined with Talimogene laherparepvec (T-Vec) and pembrolizumab.

Patients who do not respond to one immunotherapy combination may respond during treatment with an alternate combination, even in the presence of multiple brain metastases. Biomarkers are needed to assist clinicians in evidence based clinical decision making after progression on first line immunotherapy to determine whether response can be achieved with second line immunotherapy.

Now...these abstracts describe only 3 peeps.  Patient #1 is still with us a year later and, given the T cell response noted, seems to be benefiting.  Patient #2 attained a complete response.  Patient #3 attained a complete response in the brain and partial in the body.  (I still really hate it when melanoma patients - or anybody really - has to resort to WBR, but desperate times call for desperate measures.) 

So...for what it's worth.  Sounds like something I would certainly be interested in should I have the need.  Hang tough ratties!!! - c

Nivo after nivo? Or nivo after progression? Can melanoma patients still attain a response???

A question frequently asked...with no absolute answer is.... What if I take nivo after I've progressed....having already been on nivo....or if currently on nivo??????  These reports begin an answer:

Efficacy and safety of retreatment with nivolumab in metastatic melanoma patients previously treated with nivolumab. Nomura, Otasua, Konda, et al.  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2017 Oct 5. 

Nivolumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against programmed death-1 that has been shown to improve survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. However, the efficacy of nivolumab and other agents in melanoma remains limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of retreatment with nivolumab in metastatic melanoma patients who previously progressed on nivolumab.

A retrospective review was performed on eight consecutive metastatic melanoma patients retreated with nivolumab who progressed on previous nivolumab. These patients received nivolumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Best responses to each treatment were assessed using RECIST 1.1.

Of eight metastatic melanoma patients, three patients received chemotherapy before first nivolumab. The median first nivolumab treatment period was 4.1 months. During first nivolumab, 3 (37.5%) patients achieved a partial response and 3 (37.5%) patients achieved stable disease as their best response. First nivolumab was discontinued due to disease progression in seven patients and grade 3 colitis in 1 patient. Patients were subsequently treated with ipilimumab (n = 6), vemurafenib (n = 1), or no other medical treatment (n = 1). The median treatment period between first and second nivolumab was 3.0 months. Four patients received radiation therapy between first and second nivolumab. The median second nivolumab treatment period was 4.3 months. Among the eight patients who received second nivolumab, 2 (25%) patients achieved a partial response and 3 (37.5%) patients achieved stable disease as their best response. Second nivolumab was discontinued due to disease progression in seven patients. One patient continues to receive second nivolumab. Among the four patients treated with ipilimumab and radiotherapy between first and second nivolumab, the response rate was 50% and the disease control rate was 75%.

This study showed that retreatment with nivolumab is an option for select metastatic melanoma patients after previous nivolumab treatment.

Here, 8 patients were given nivo (3 of them had chemo beforehand).  37.5% had a partial response.  37.5% had stable disease.  Nivo was stopped due to progression in 7 of the patients and colitis in 1.  6 were subsequently treated with ipi.  1 was given vemurafenib.  4 got radiation at that point.  Then...these 8 folks were given a new round of nivo.  2 attained a partial response.  3 attained stable disease. Eventually, 7 of them had to stop nivo again due to progression.  Interestingly, it sounds as though those that had radiation between therapies did better....at least for a while - though that is not entirely spelled out here.  

So, it seems that round two of nivo can give patients a reprieve.  Though for these 8 patients it doesn't sound as though it lasted long enough!

And....there's also this....

Nivolumab for Patients With Advanced Melanoma Treated Beyond Progression: Analysis of 2 Phase 3 Clinical Trials. Long, Weber, Larkin, ….Hodi, Wolchok.  JAMA Oncol. 2017 Jun 29.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated atypical response patterns, which may not be fully captured by conventional response criteria. There is a need to better understand the potential benefit of continued immune checkpoint inhibition beyond progression.

To evaluate the safety and potential benefit of nivolumab (anti-programmed cell death receptor 1) monotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1-defined progression.

Pooled, retrospective analysis of data from phase 3 trials of nivolumab in treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 066 or CheckMate 067) conducted at academic and clinical cancer centers. Participants were patients treated beyond first disease progression, defined as those who received their last dose of nivolumab more than 6 weeks after progression (TBP group); and patients not treated beyond progression, who discontinued nivolumab therapy before or at progression (non-TBP group). Data analyses were conducted from November 6, 2015, to January 11, 2017.  Nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) administered until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Patients could be treated beyond progression if deriving apparent clinical benefit and tolerating study drug, at the investigator's discretion.  Tumor response and safety in TBP and non-TBP patients.

Among 526 randomized patients (39% [n = 203] female; median age, 62 years [range, 18-90 years]), 306 (58%) experienced disease progression, including 85 (28%) TBP patients and 221 (72%) non-TBP patients. Twenty-four (28%) of the TBP patients had a target lesion reduction of greater than 30% after progression compared with baseline (TBP greater than 30% group). At the time of this analysis, 65 (76%) TBP patients and 21 (87%) TBP greater than 30% patients were still alive; 27 (32%) and 11 (46%), respectively, continued to receive treatment. Median (range) time from progression to last dose of treatment was 4.7 (1.4-25.8) months for TBP patients and 7.6 (2.4-19.4) months for TBP greater than 30% patients. Median (range) time from progression to greater than 30% tumor reduction was 1.4 (0.2-7.0) months. Treatment-related select grade 3 to 4 adverse events were similar in the TBP and non-TBP groups (5 [6%] and 9 [4%], respectively).

A substantial proportion of selected patients treated with frontline nivolumab who were clinically stable and judged to be eligible for treatment beyond RECIST v1.1-defined progression by the treating investigators derived apparent clinical benefit without compromising safety. Further analysis will help define the potential benefit of continued nivolumab treatment beyond progression.

Here they looked at the outcomes of 3 trials in which nivo was used....in 526  patients.  306 had progression.  But 85 of those who progressed were given nivo more than 6 weeks AFTER their known progression, while 221 were not. Of those 85 patients "treated beyond progression", 24 "had a target lesion reduction of greater than 30% after progression compared to baseline."  And at follow-up further down the line, many of those were still alive.

There is much we still don't understand about immunotherapy.  But, I think the statement Agarwala and Weber made to, "Be patient with the patient!" still holds.  Hang tough, ratties! And, thanks!  - c

What to do when that one melanoma tumor keeps growing?

For some melanoma patients, despite a pretty good response to targeted or immunotherapy, there remains that single lesion or one group of tumors that just won't respond!!!  What are they to do with that???  Localized treatment is becoming more clearly the answer!  This article noted the benefit of local surgery to excise the problem child:  When in doubt, cut it out!!!  Now there's this:

The Management of Oligoprogression in the Landscape of New Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma.  Guida, Bartolomeo, De Risi, et al.  Cancers (Basel). 2019 Oct 14. 

Background: A limited degree of progression after a response to treatment is labelled as oligoprogression and is a hot topic of metastatic melanoma (MM) management. Rogue progressive metastases could benefit from local treatment, which could allow the continuation of ongoing systemic therapy, also known as treatment beyond progression (TBP). 

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 214 selected MM patients who developed oligoprogression during treatment with v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF)/mitogen-activated-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) or programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and received a local treatment continuing TBP. We performed univariate and multivariable analyses to assess the association between therapy outcomes and a series of clinical and biological features. 

Results: We identified 27 (10%) oligoprogressed patients treated locally with surgery (14), radiosurgery (11), and electrochemotherapy (2). TBP included PD-1 inhibitors (13) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (14). The median progression-free survival post oligoprogression (PFSPO) was 14 months (5-19). In the univariate analysis, a significantly longer PFSPO was associated with complete response (CR), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0, neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio (N/L) less than 2, and progression-free survival (PFS) at oligoprogression greater than 11 months. Nevertheless, in the multivariable analysis, only CR and N/L less than 2 were found to be associated with longer PFSPO. 

Conclusions: In selected patients, local treatments contribute to controlling oligoprogression for a long time, allowing the continuation of systemic treatment and prolongation of overall survival (OS). Increasing biological and clinical knowledge is improving the accuracy in identifying patients to apply for local ablative therapies.

So these researchers looked back on the records of 214 melanoma patients who developed oligoprogression.  They found 27, 13 of whom were treated with PD-1 inhibitors and 14 who were treated with BRAF/MEK.  Those patients then had their local non-responding lesions treated with either surgery (14), radiation (11), electrochemotherapy (2).  Average progression free survival after those therapies was 14 months.  Only complete response and a NLR less than 2 were factors that were significantly associated with a longer progression free survival after that treatment.

The article below, further corroborates the need for - and good responses from - localized treatment in patients who experience limited progression after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors:

Patterns of failure after immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors predict durable progression-free survival after local therapy for metastatic melanoma.  Klemen, Wang, Feingold, et al.   J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Jul 24.

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, but most patients treated with CPI eventually develop progressive disease. Local therapy including surgery, ablation or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may be useful to manage limited progression, but criteria for patient selection have not been established. Previous work has suggested progression-free survival (PFS) after local therapy is associated with patterns of immunotherapy failure, but this has not been studied in patients treated with CPI.

We analyzed clinical data from patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated with antibodies against CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1, either as single-agent or combination therapy, and identified those who had disease progression in 1 to 3 sites managed with local therapy. Patterns of CPI failure were designated by independent radiological review as growth of established metastases or appearance of new metastases. Local therapy for diagnosis, palliation or CNS metastases was excluded.

Four hundred twenty-eight patients with metastatic melanoma received treatment with CPI from 2007 to 2018. Seventy-seven have ongoing complete responses while 69 died within 6 months of starting CPI; of the remaining 282 patients, 52 (18%) were treated with local therapy meeting our inclusion criteria. Local therapy to achieve no evidence of disease (NED) was associated with three-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 31% and five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) of 60%. Stratified by patterns of failure, patients with progression in established tumors had three-year PFS of 70%, while those with new metastases had three-year PFS of 6%. Five-year DSS after local therapy was 93% versus 31%, respectively.

Local therapy for oligoprogression after CPI can result in durable PFS in selected patients. We observed that patterns of failure seen during or after CPI treatment are strongly associated with PFS after local therapy, and may represent a useful criterion for patient selection. This experience suggests there may be an increased role for local therapy in patients being treated with immunotherapy.

Though not listed in either of these articles, I would submit that intralesional therapy (if the lesion in question is accessible) as another good option to use in getting rid of a pesky melanoma remnant!  Wishing all of you my best! - c

Melanoma patients treated beyond progression with anti-PD-1

I've had this report in my file for a little while now, but since has gotten some new press, and it is a perennial question with anti-PD-1 patients....here you go....

Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis. Beaver, Hazarika, Mulkey, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan 17.

Patients who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.

For this pooled analysis, we included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1 antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no treatment beyond progression cohorts.

Among the eight multicentre clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1 antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%) did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692 patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive treatment beyond progression (11·2 months). 362 (54%) of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to 90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669).

Continuation of treatment beyond progression in the product labeling of these immunotherapies has not been recommended because the clinical benefit remains to be proven. Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy might be appropriate for selected patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, identified by specific criteria at the time of progression, based on the potential for late responses in the setting of the known toxicity profile.

Here is the new press, shared with me by the Edster, which gives some more explanation and perspective: OncLive: Analysis Explores Continuing Anti-PD-1 Therapy Past Progression in Melanoma Jason Harris Published: Friday, Feb 16, 2018

Sounds like Weber and Agarwala had it right all along:  "Be patient with the patient!" - c

ASCO 2017: Nivo or Ipi/Nivo combo in melanoma after progression on ipi or anti-PD-1

Despite a heavy heart, I begin my annual journey through the ASCO reports.  Great thanks to B for funneling the most pertinent of the entire meeting my way.  I will do my best to give you the unvarnished abstracts, any relevant history I have, and my take on what the expert's jargon is really saying.  As usual, my commentary will be in red.  However, there are many sources through which you can read them (as well as see videos) for yourself and I certainly encourage you to do so.  At any rate, in honor of Jamie and Josh - here we go....

Can you get a response to nivo (Opdivo) alone or the ipi/nivo combo after you've been treated with ipi or anti-PD-1 and progressed?????  Yes, you can!!!!!

Here patients who have poor prognostic factors as well as progression after ipi are treated with nivo alone:

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with advanced melanoma (MEL) and poor prognostic factors who progressed on or after ipilimumab (IPI): Results from a phase II study (CheckMate 172).

ASCO 2017. J Clin Oncol 35, 2017. Schadendorf, Ascierto, Haanen, et al.

Background: In the phase III CheckMate 037 study, NIVO improved the objective response rate and progression-free survival with less toxicity vs chemotherapy in patients (pts) with MEL who progressed after prior IPI treatment. We report the first efficacy and updated safety data from pts with MEL in CheckMate 172, including those with rare melanoma subtypes (uveal, mucosal), brain metastases, or an ECOG performance status (PS) of 2. Methods: In this ongoing phase II, single-arm, open-label, multicenter study, pts with MEL who progressed on or after IPI were treated with NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W for up to 2 years until progression or unacceptable toxicity. We report efficacy and updated safety data from 734 treated pts with greater than/= to 1 year of follow-up. Results: Of 734 pts, 50% had LDH greater than ULN, 7% ECOG PS 2, 66% M1c disease, 15% a history of brain metastases, and 23% received greater than/= to 3 prior therapies. Overall, 593 pts (81%) received more than 4 doses of NIVO. Overall, response rate at 12 weeks was 32%, with a complete response in 1%. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 63%. Any grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 66% and 17% of pts, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs occurred in 4% of pts. The most common treatment-related select (potentially immune-related) AEs were diarrhea (12%), hypothyroidism (9%), and pruritus (7%). Conclusions: CheckMate 172 is the largest study of NIVO efficacy and safety in pts with MEL who progressed on or after IPI. NIVO demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that of prior clinical trials. Efficacy outcomes were encouraging in some difficult-to-treat subgroups of pts with poor prognostic factors, such as mucosal melanoma and brain metastases. 

	Total pt (n=734)	ECOG PS 2 (n=48)	Uveal (n=75)	Mucosal (n=52)	CNS (n=112)
response rate at 12 weeks, % (n)	32 (123/386)	15 (2/13)	6 (2/34)	21 (5/24)	43 (20/47)
Med OS (mo)	19 (17-NR)	2 (1-4)	11 (7-15)	13 (6-NR)	13 (9-NR)
1-yr OS rate, %	63 (60-67)	14 (2-26)	47 (34-59)	53 (38-67)	51 (40-60)

* assessed in evaluable pts on tx for greater than/= to 12 weeks; NR = not reached.

Here patients who advanced after a variety of immunotherapy were treated with the ipi/nivo combo:

Salvage combination ipilimumab and nivolumab after failure of prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

ASCO 2017. J Clin Onco 35, 2017. Gaughn, Petroni, Grosh, et al.

Background: The combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab is standard initial therapy in patients with advanced melanoma based on trials involving treatment-naïve patients. The benefit in those previously managed with checkpoint monotherapy is not well defined. Methods: We identified metastatic melanoma patients from our Immunotherapy database managed with combination Ipilimumab/Nivolumab after progression on prior checkpoint monotherapy. Baseline clinical factors, treatment history, combination therapy outcome by RECIST v1.1 and toxicity data were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Given the small sample size and limited numbers of deaths, it is too early to look for preliminary associations between outcomes and clinicopathologic factors. Results: We identified 19 patients treated with combination Ipilimumab/Nivolumab after progression on prior checkpoint monotherapy. The cohort included 15 men and 4 women with an average age of 63 years. Thirteen patients had M1c disease, and 7 had a BRAF mutation. Patients had received up to four lines of prior immunotherapy including 9 treated with both prior anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 monotherapy. Seven patients completed all four doses of combination therapy with 6 proceeding onto maintenance nivolumab. Eight patients stopped treatment due to toxicity and 4 due to progressive disease. Thirteen patients had clinically significant toxicity, with rash, colitis, hepatitis, and hypophysitis reported most frequently. There were no treatment-related deaths. Overall, 2/19 patients (10.5%,) had an objective response (CR+PR) and 9/19 patients (47.4%) had disease control (CR+PR+SD). Four of the patients had stable disease for over 6 months. Six of the 19 patients went on to receive subsequent treatment. Median follow-up for patients still alive was 7 months (range 1 to 20 months) and median survival was not reached. Six-month survival was 68.5%. Conclusions: The combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab can result in melanoma control in patients with progression on prior checkpoint monotherapy with an expected toxicity profile.

While response rates were not nearly what we'd like them to be, patients DID respond to both nivo after ipi and the Ipi/Nivo combo after prior treatments of ipi and anti-PD-1 alone.  Side effects were no worse than what we already know them to be on the respective immunotherapies. Hang tough ratties.  Much love and hope to each of you.  - c

Circulating tumor DNA to monitor and predict response in melanoma patients - yes - AGAIN!!!!

I first posted articles related to blood analysis to evaluate circulating tumor DNA in 2014.  It is a fairly non-invasive and relatively painless way to diagnose melanoma, measure tumor burden, and evaluate progression or response in melanoma patients.  It may even indicate those who are more likely to respond to a particular therapy.  Unfortunately, it is not commonly utilized.  Here are zillions of articles:  Circulating Tumor DNA for melanoma

Now, there are these:

The use of circulating cell-free tumor DNA in routine diagnostics of metastatic melanoma patients.  Knuever, Weiss, Persa, et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18.

Modern advances in technology such as next-generation sequencing and digital PCR make detection of minor circulating cell-free tumor DNA amounts in blood from cancer patients possible. Samples can be obtained minimal-invasively, tested for treatment-determining genetic alterations and are considered to reflect the genetic constitution of the whole tumor mass. Furthermore, tumor development can be determined by a time course of the quantified circulating cell-free tumor DNA. However, systematic studies which prove the clinical relevance of monitoring patients using liquid biopsies are still lacking. In this study, we collected 115 samples from 47 late stage melanoma patients over 1.5 years alongside therapy-associated clinical routine monitoring. Mutation status was confirmed by molecular analysis of primary tumor material. We can show that detectable levels of circulating cell-free tumor DNA correlate with clinical development over time. Increasing levels of circulating cell-free tumor DNA during melanoma treatment with either targeted therapy (BRAF/MEK inhibitors) or immunotherapy, during recovery time or the intervals between last treatment cycle and second-line treatment point towards clinical progression before the progression becomes obvious in imaging. Therefore, this is a further possibility to closely screen our patients for tumor progression during therapy, in therapy-free phases and in earlier stages before therapy initiation.

YEP!

Longitudinal monitoring of ctDNA in patients with melanoma and brain metastases treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.  Lee, Menziew, Carlino, et al.  Clin Cancer Res.  2020 April 22.

PURPOSE: Brain involvement occurs in majority of patients with metastatic melanoma. The potential of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for surveillance and monitoring systemic therapy response in patients with melanoma brain metastases merits investigation. 

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This study examined circulating BRAF, NRAS and c-KIT mutations in melanoma patients with active brain metastases receiving PD-1 inhibitor-based therapy. Intracranial and extracranial disease volumes were measured using the sum of product of diameters, and response assessment performed using RECIST. Longitudinal plasma samples were analysed for ctDNA over the first 12 weeks of treatment (threshold 2.5 copies/ml plasma). 

RESULTS: Of a total of 72 patients; 13 patients had intracranial metastases only and 59 patients had concurrent intracranial and extracranial metastases. ctDNA detectability was 0% and 64%, respectively, and detectability was associated with extracranial disease volume. Undetectable ctDNA on-therapy was associated with extracranial response but not intracranial response. The median overall survival in patients with undetectable (n = 34) versus detectable (n = 38) ctDNA at baseline was 39.2 versus 10.6 months and on-therapy was 39.2 versus 9.2 months. 

CONCLUSIONS: ctDNA remains a strong prognostic biomarker in melanoma patients with brain metastases, especially in patients with concurrent extracranial disease. However, ctDNA was not able to detect or monitor intracranial disease activity, and we recommend against using ctDNA as a sole test during surveillance and therapeutic monitoring in patients with melanoma.

In this study of 72 patients, circulating tumor DNA was a useful biomarker in patients who had melanoma in both their body and brain.  The ability to monitor the status of patients with melanoma ONLY in their brain was not found.  It should be noted that this is one study and there were only 13 patients in the "brain met only" arm.

Circulating Tumor DNA Predicts Outcome from First-, but not Second-line Treatment and Identifies Melanoma Patients Who May Benefit from Combination Immunotherapy.   Marsavela, Lee, Calapre, et al.  Clin Cancer Res.  2020 Nov.

Purpose: We evaluated the predictive value of pretreatment ctDNA to inform therapeutic outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma relative to type and line of treatment.

Experimental design: Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was quantified in 125 samples collected from 110 patients prior to commencing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as first- (n = 32) or second-line (n = 27) regimens, or prior to commencing first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy (n = 66). An external validation cohort included 128 patients commencing ICI therapies in the first- (N = 77) or second-line (N = 51) settings.

Results: In the discovery cohort, low ctDNA (less than or equal to 20 copies/mL) prior to commencing therapy predicted longer progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with first-line ICIs, but not in the second-line setting. An independent cohort validated that ctDNA is predictive of PFS in the first-line setting, but not in the second-line ICI setting. Moreover, ctDNA prior to commencing ICI treatment was not predictive of PFS for patients pretreated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in either the discovery or validation cohorts. Reduced PFS and overall survival were observed in patients with high ctDNA receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy, relative to those treated with combination anti-CTLA-4/anti-PD-1 inhibitors.

Conclusions: Pretreatment ctDNA is a reliable indicator of patient outcome in the first-line ICI treatment setting, but not in the second-line ICI setting, especially in patients pretreated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Preliminary evidence indicated that treatment-naïve patients with high ctDNA may preferentially benefit from combined ICIs.

We already know that progression free survival and overall survival is better in those with the lowest tumor burden (no matter how you attain that information) and better in those who respond to treatment on the first go.  This study confirms that using ctDNA.  We don't fully understand why melanoma peeps respond less well on their second round of therapy and this report indicates that ctDNA is less useful in that setting as well - though they looked at small numbers here with 32 patients in the first line immunotherapy treatment cohort and only 27 peeps were using it for the second time.  There were 66 patients using targeted therapy for the first time.

Circulating tumour DNA and melanoma survival: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.  Gandini, Zanna, De Angelis, et al.  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol.  2020 Nov.

We reviewed and meta-analysed the available evidence (until December 2019) about circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels and melanoma patients survival. We included twenty-six studies (more than 2000 patients overall), which included mostly stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma patients and differed widely in terms of systemic therapy received and somatic mutations that were searched. Patients with detectable ctDNA before treatment had worse progression-free survival (PFS)  and overall survival (OS), with no difference by tumour stage. ctDNA detectability during follow-up was associated with poorer PFS and OS; in the latter case, the association was stronger for stage IV vs. III melanomas. Between-estimates heterogeneity was low for all pooled estimates. ctDNA is a strong prognostic biomarker for advanced-stage melanoma patients, robust across tumour (e.g. genomic profile) and patients (e.g. systemic therapy) characteristics.

Detectable ctDNA  before treatment correlated in a decreased progression free survival and overall survival for both Stage III and Stage IV peeps.  When ctDNA was detectable during follow-up after treatment, associated PFS and OS was worse, but the decreased OS was even more significant in Stage IV patients.

Circulating Tumour DNA in Advanced Melanoma Patients Ceasing PD1 Inhibition in the Absence of Disease Progression.  Warbutron, Calapre, Pereira, et al.  Cancers. 2020 Nov.

Immunotherapy is an important and established treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. Initial anti-PD1 trials arbitrarily defined a two-year treatment duration, but a shorter treatment duration may be appropriate. In this study, we retrospectively assessed 70 patients who stopped anti-PD1 therapy in the absence of progressive disease (PD) to determine clinical outcomes. In our cohort, the median time on treatment was 11.8 months. Complete response was attained at time of anti-PD1 discontinuation in 61 (87%). After a median follow up of 34.2 months (range: 2-70.8) post discontinuation, 81% remained disease free. Using ddPCR, we determine the utility of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) to predict progressive disease after cessation (n = 38). There was a significant association between presence of ctDNA at cessation and disease progression and this conferred a negative and positive predictive value of 0.82 and 0.80, respectively. Additionally, dichotomised treatment-free survival in patients with or without ctDNA at cessation was significantly longer in the latter group. Overall, our study confirms that durable disease control can be achieved with cessation of therapy in the absence of disease progression and undetectable ctDNA at cessation was associated with longer treatment-free survival.

In this study, looking at melanoma patients who stopped immunotherapy after about a year, researchers found that disease progression was strongly associated with those who had detectable ctDNA when they stopped treatment.  Not a surprise.  SO - if you are thinking of stopping treatment due to side effects or a complete response per scans, getting ctDNA analyzed may be an important factor in that decision making process!

Stopping targeted therapy for complete responders in advanced BRAF mutant melanoma. Warbutron, Menjawy, Calapre, et al.  Sci Rep.  2020 Nov 2.

BRAF inhibitors revolutionised the management of melanoma patients and although resistance occurs, there is a subgroup of patients who maintain durable disease control. For those cases with durable complete response (CR) it is not clear whether it is safe to cease therapy. Here we identified 13 patients treated with BRAF +/- MEK inhibitors, who cease therapy after prolonged CR (median = 34 months, range 20-74). Recurrence was observed in 3/13 (23%) patients. In the remaining 10 patients with sustained CR off therapy, the median follow up after discontinuation was 19 months (range 8-36). We retrospectively measured ctDNA levels using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in longitudinal plasma samples. CtDNA levels were undetectable in 11/13 cases after cessation and remained undetectable in patients in CR (10/13). CtDNA eventually became detectable in 2/3 cases with disease recurrence, but remained undetectable in 1 patient with brain only progression. Our study suggests that consideration could be given to ceasing targeted therapy in the context of prolonged treatment, durable response and no evidence of residual disease as measured by ctDNA.

Same song, second verse in regard to two points here.  Folks going off targeted therapy did better if they had no detectable ctDNA.  And ctDNA was not detectable in one brain met only patient despite the obvious brain met.

We STILL have much to learn about melanoma and ctDNA.  However, it is CLEAR (after more than 7 years!!!) that analyzing ctDNA can be a helpful tool and should be routinely used in combination with other methods to monitor and evaluate melanoma patients - before and after therapy.  Thanks, ratties.  Demand the healthcare you deserve!!! - c

SRS and immunotherapy in melanoma brain mets as well as other organs

I have been yelling about the benefits of radiation COMBINED with immunotherapy for soooooooo long!!!  Here are a ZILLION posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a nice review from June of this year:  Radiation therapy and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: the clinical development of an evolving anticancer combination

While most of the initial data regarding combining radiation WITH immunotherapy started with the good results achieved in folks with brain mets....we are learning more and more about the benefit of the combo in other areas of the body.  Here are two reports:

Efficacy of combined hypo-fractionated radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 monotherapy in difficult-to-treat advanced melanoma patients.  Roger, Finet, Boru, et al. Oncoimmunology. 2018 Mar 13.

Information on the role of radiotherapy in anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody-treated melanoma patients is limited. We report on a prospective cohort of advanced melanoma patients treated simultaneously with radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 therapy between 01/01/15 and 30/06/16. Tumor evaluations (RECIST 1.1) were performed every 3 months on radiated and non-radiated lesions. Twenty-five advanced melanoma patients (64% AJCC stage IV M1c, 64% on second-line treatment or more, 60% with elevated LDH serum levels) were included. Radiotherapy was performed early (median: 24 days) after the first anti-PD-1 dose in 15 patients with rapidly progressing symptomatic lesion(s) or later (median: 5.4 months) in 10 patients with progressive disease (PD) despite PD-1 blockade. Radiotherapy was limited to one organ in 24 patients and consisted mainly of hypo-fractioned radiotherapy (median dose 26 Gy in 3-5 fractions, 17 patients) or brain radiosurgery (5 patients). Median follow-up after first anti-PD-1 dose was 16.9 m (range 2.7-27.4), with 44% of patients alive at last follow-up. For radiated lesions, rates of complete (CR), partial (PR) responses, stable disease (SD) or PD were 24%, 12%, 24%, and 32%, respectively. For non-radiated lesions, rates of CR, PR, SD, and PD were 20%, 19%, 12%, and 40%, respectively. Responses achieved after radiotherapy for radiated and non-radiated areas were correlated suggesting an abscopal effect. Five patients with CR remained disease-free after discontinuation of anti-PD-1 for a median of 9.5 months. No unusual adverse event was recorded. Hypo-fractionated radiotherapy may enhance efficacy of anti-PD1 therapy in difficult-to-treat patients.

Combined radiotherapy with nivolumab for extracranial metastatic malignant melanoma. Komatsu, Konishi, Aoshima, et al. Jpn J Radiol. 2018 Sep 11.

We retrospectively evaluated the tumor regression after radiotherapy in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab for metastatic melanoma.  We evaluated the extracranial metastatic melanoma lesions to which concomitant radiotherapy with nivolumab was administered from June 2015 to February 2017. Tumor volume and maximum diameter were measured at the time of pre-radiotherapy and best response, and the tumor reduction rate was assessed in two ways that our hospital adopts: tumor volume and diameter.

Seven lesions in five patients were evaluated. The median time from the start of nivolumab treatment to the start of radiotherapy was 5 months (range 0-22 months). The objective response rate was 85.7% in the evaluation by tumor volume and 42.9% by maximum diameter of the tumor. The objective complete response rate was 28.6% in evaluation by tumor volume and 14.3% by maximum dia. The 1-year tumor control rate was 62.5%. The 1- and 2-year overall survival rate after nivolumab treatment were 75% and 50%, respectively. Two patients who obtained a complete response had presented with vitiligo.

The combination of radiotherapy and nivolumab treatment produced favorable responses. Vitiligo may be correlated with a good response to concomitant radiotherapy with nivolumab.

Good to know.  Immunotherapy WITH radiotherapy WORKS in the brain and body.  Here's one more report confirming the benefit of CONCURRENT administration...

Concurrent versus non-concurrent immune checkpoint inhibition with stereotactic radiosurgery for metastatic brain disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lu, Goyal, Rovin, et al. J Neurooncol. 2018 Nov 3.

Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is an emerging immunotherapy for metastatic brain disease (MBD). Current management options include stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), which has been shown to confer prognostic benefit in combination with ICI. However, the effect, if any, of ICI timing on this benefit is currently unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of concurrent ICI with SRS on survival outcomes in MBD compared to non-concurrent ICI administered before or after SRS.

Searches of 7 electronic databases from inception to April 2018 were conducted following the appropriate guidelines. 1210 articles were identified for screening. Kaplan Meier estimation of 12-month overall survival (OS), local progression free survival (LPFS) and distant progression free survival (DPFS) were pooled as odd ratios (ORs) and analyzed using the random effects model.  A total of 8 retrospective observational cohort studies satisfied selection criteria.

Compared to non-concurrent ICI, concurrent ICI with SRS conferred a significant 12-month OS benefit, and comparable 12-month LPFS and DPFS. These significances were reflected in the subgroup of melanoma metastases.

Based on the trends of our findings, there appears to exist an optimal time window around SRS of which ICI may confer the most survival benefit. However, current literature is limited by a number of clinical parameters requiring further delineation which limits the certainty of these findings. Larger, prospective, and randomized studies will assist in identifying the time period for which ICI can provide the best outcome in MBD managed with SRS.  

Since ratties put their lives on the line and taught us the benefits of radiation combined with immunotherapy WITHOUT increased side effects (Here's one more report:  CONCURRENT radiation and immunotherapy for brain mets is BEST!!!! (yes, AGAIN!!!)  )....that's what docs are doing, right??????

Stereotactic radiosurgery and immunotherapy in melanoma brain metastases: Patterns of care and treatment outcomes.  Gabani, Fishcher-Valuck, Johanns, et al.
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jun 27.

Preclinical studies have suggested that radiation therapy (RT) enhances antitumor immune response and can act synergistically when administered with immunotherapy. However, this effect in melanoma brain metastasis is not well studied. We aim to explore the clinical effect of combining RT and immunotherapy in patients with melanoma brain metastasis (MBM).

Patients with MBM between 2011 and 2013 were obtained from the National Cancer Database. Patients who did not have identifiable sites of metastasis and who did not receive RT for the treatment of their MBM were excluded. Patients were separated into cohorts that received immunotherapy versus patients who did not. 

A total of 1104 patients were identified: 912 received RT alone and 192 received RT plus immunotherapy. The median follow-up time was 6.4 (0.1-56.8) months. Patients with extracranial disease (OR 1.603), and patients receiving SRS (OR 1.955) as compared to WBRT, had a higher likelihood of being treated with immunotherapy. The utilization of immunotherapy had nearly doubled between 2011 and 2013 (12.9-22.8%). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with superior OS were younger age, lower medical comorbidities, lack of extracranial disease, and treatment with immunotherapy and SRS. The median OS was 11.1 (8.9-13.4) months in RT plus immunotherapy vs. 6.2 (5.6-6.8) months in RT alone, which remained significant after propensity score matching.  

An increase in trend for the use of immunotherapy was noted, however, an overwhelming majority of the patients with this disease are still treated without immunotherapy. Addition of immunotherapy to RT is associated with improved OS in MBM. Given the selection biases that are inherent in this analysis, prospective trials investigating the combination of RT, especially SRS and immunotherapy are warranted.

Despite overwhelming proof that radiotherapy works best WITH immunotherapy and "is associated with improved Overall Survival in Melanoma Brain Mets", these authors note, "....an overwhelming majority of patients with this disease are still treated without immunotherapy."

WHAT THE HELL?????  WHY??????????????????????????????????

Yep. We know that even when anti-PD-1 is given alone, it works in the brain....  And I've been yelling about this for a while:  ASCO 2018 - Survival of folks having melanoma brain mets with immunotherapy
Now this:

Long-Term Survival of Patients With Melanoma With Active Brain Metastases Treated With Pembrolizumab on a Phase II Trial.  Kluger, Chiang, Mahagan, et al.J Clin Oncol. 2018 Nov 8.

Pembrolizumab is active in melanoma, but activity in patients with untreated brain metastasis is less established. We present long-term follow-up of pembrolizumab-treated patients with new or progressing brain metastases treated on a phase II clinical trial.  We enrolled 23 patients with melanoma with one or more asymptomatic, untreated 5- to 20-mm brain metastasis not requiring corticosteroids; 70% of patients had prior systemic therapy. Pembrolizumab was administered for up to 24 months. Brain metastasis response, the primary end point, was assessed by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Pretreatment tumors were analyzed for T-cell infiltrate and programmed death ligand 1.  Six patients (26%) had a brain metastasis response. Eight patients (35%) did not reach a protocol evaluation scan and were unevaluable for brain metastasis response as a result of progression or need for radiation. Brain metastasis and systemic responses were concordant, with all ongoing at 24 months. The median progression-free and overall survival times were 2 and 17 months, respectively. Eleven patients (48%) were alive at 24 months. This included three unevaluable patients. One of these three patients had hemorrhaged, and two had symptoms from perilesional edema requiring radiosurgery, but all three patients remained on commercial pembrolizumab more than 24 months later. None of the 24-month survivors received subsequent BRAF inhibitors. Neurologic adverse events occurred in 65% of patients; all adverse events but one were grade 1 or 2. Three patients had seizures, which were treated with anticonvulsants. Most responders had higher pretreatment tumor CD8 cell density and programmed death ligand 1 expression, whereas all nonresponders did not.  Pembrolizumab is active in melanoma brain metastases with acceptable toxicity and durable responses. Multidisciplinary care is required to optimally manage patients with brain metastases, including consideration of radiation to large or symptomatic lesions, which were excluded in this trial. Two-year survival was similar to patients without brain metastasis treated with anti-programmed cell death 1 agents. Concordant brain and extracerebral responses support use of pembrolizumab to treat small, asymptomatic brain metastases.

While this report confirms, again, that anti-PD-1 alone works in the brain, if my mets were treatable through radiotherapy....I would still avail myself of the COMBO!!!  Radiotherapy AND immunotherapy!!!

Then there are the abscopal effects (The situation in which tumors that were NOT irradiated actually respond, shrink, and disappear when distant lesions are treated!!!) that are possible with radiation.  Here's a review: Abscopal responses

Time to abandon single-site irradiation for inducing abscopal effects.  Brooks, Chang.  Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 Nov 6.  

Considerable interest is being directed toward combining immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) with radiotherapy to improve response rates to ICI, which have been disappointingly low at around 15-30% among patients with advanced-stage cancers other than melanoma. Since a case report published in 2012, in which authors described the resolution of metastatic disease after irradiation of a single lesion in a patient who had been receiving ICI, hundreds of clinical trials have been launched with the aim of testing the safety and/or efficacy of radiotherapy in combination with immunotherapy, nearly all of which use this single-site irradiation, or 'abscopal', approach. However, emerging preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that this approach likely produces suboptimal results. In this Perspective, we describe this evidence and provide a biological rationale supporting the abandonment of the single-site abscopal approach. We instead advocate exploring comprehensive irradiation of multiple/all lesions in order to enhance the likelihood of obtaining meaningful clinical outcomes - if such a clinical synergy between radiation and ICI does exist - before the failure of the current, single-site approach leads to the potential premature and inappropriate abandonment of radiotherapy in combination with ICI altogether.

Hmmm....  Makes sense to me.  If one irradiated site might produce an abscopal response, it seems that a couple could do better. 

Yep.  Immunotherapy works in the brain.  Yep.  Immunotherapy COMBINED with radiation is a good thing for melanoma patients.  There you go.  Again. - c