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

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

As their intro paragraph notes below....we know that anti-PD1 alone or combined with ipi does better than ipi alone. We know the response rate to ipi is about 15-20%.  We know that response rates to either anti-PD1 product (Nivo/Opdivo or Pembro/Keytruda) are about 40%.  We know that the ipi/nivo combo response rate is about 50% or a little better.  Here...though...they looked at folks who had failed anti-PD1 as a single agent and tried treating them with either ipi alone or the ipi/nivo combo....

Ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab after progression on anti-PD-1 therapy in advanced melanoma. Zimmer, Apuri, Eroglu, ...Sondak, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2017 Feb 16.

The anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab have shown improved objective response rates and progression-free survival compared to ipilimumab only in advanced melanoma patients. Anti-PD-1 therapy demonstrated nearly equal clinical efficacy in patients who had progressed after ipilimumab or were treatment-naïve. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab after treatment failure to anti-PD-therapy.

A multicenter retrospective study in advanced melanoma patients who were treated with nivolumab (1 or 3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg or 3 mg/kg) or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) alone after treatment failure to anti-PD-1 therapy was performed. Patient, tumour, pre- and post-treatment characteristics were analysed.

In total, 47 patients were treated with ipilimumab (ipi-group) and 37 patients with ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination-group) after treatment failure to anti-PD-1 therapy. Overall response rates for the ipi- and the combination-group were 16% and 21%, respectively. Disease control rate was 42% for the ipi-group and 33% for the combination-group. One-year overall survival rates for the ipi- and the combination-group were 54% and 55%, respectively.


Ipilimumab should be considered as a viable treatment option for patients with failure to prior anti-PD-1 therapy, including those with progressive disease as best response to prior anti-PD-1. In contrast, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab appears significantly less effective in this setting compared to treatment-naïve patients.

Sooo....while response rates were not as great as they are for the treatment naive patients.... a 21% response rate to the ipi/nivo combo can still be attained for those who have failed anti-PD1 as a single agent.

I wish you well.  - c

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

It goes without saying that over the years I have posted a zillion reports about all things immunotherapy:  anti-PD-1 ~ Pembrolizumab (also referred to as Pembro and Keytruda) as well as Nivolumab (also called nivo and Opdivo) both of which have very similar side effect profiles and a roughly 40% response rate when used alone; anti-CTLA-4 ~ ipilimumab (also called ipi and Yervoy) which has similar side effects but with greater frequency and intensity than the anti-PD-1 products {though many tolerate it well} with about a 15% response rate when used alone; as well as the ipi/nivo combo which has a response rate of 50+%. (Here's a link:  ASCO 2016: Checkmate 069 - ipi/nivo combo in Stage IV melanoma demonstrated a 68% ORR)  Consistently, treatment naive patients have responded best to all of the above, responses are the most durable we have ever had in any melanoma treatments, many folks continue to respond even if they have to stop treatment due to side effects.  We have also learned that side effects need to be treated as soon as possible, often with steroids, so as to save lives and prevent greater damage than has already occurred, AND the use of steroids, if needed, DOES NOT IMPEDE RESPONSE!!!!  Feel free to use the blog's search bubble to find more info and data on all of this.  Now researchers are looking at:

Pembro plus ipi:

Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (pembro) plus ipilimumab (ipi) for advanced melanoma.

ASCO 2017. J Clin Oncl, 35, 2017. Carlino, Atkinson, Cebon, et al.

Background: We previously showed that standard-dose pembro plus reduced-dose ipi has manageable safety and robust antitumor activity in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma. Here, we present more mature data, including 1-y landmark PFS and OS estimates. Methods: In the phase 1 KEYNOTE-029 expansion cohort (NCT02089685), pts with advanced melanoma, ECOG PS 0-1, no active brain metastases, and no prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy received pembro 2 mg/kg Q3W + ipi 1 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses, then pembro alone for up to 2 y. Primary end point was safety. Efficacy end points were ORR, PFS, and DOR per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review and OS. Results: 153 pts were enrolled between Jan 13, 2015, and Sep 17, 2015. Median age was 60 y, 66% were male, 25% had elevated LDH, 56% had stage M1c disease, 36% were BRAF^V600mutant, and 13% received greater than/= to 1 prior therapy. As of Oct 17, 2016, median follow-up was 17 mo, and 64 (42%) pts remained on pembro. 110 (72%) pts received all 4 ipi doses. There were no treatment-related (TR) deaths. TRAEs occurred in all pts, were grade 3/4 in 69 (45%), and led to discontinuation of pembro and ipi in 17 (11%), ipi alone in 11 (7%), and pembro alone after ipi completion or discontinuation in 19 (12%). PD occurred in 1/11 pts who discontinued ipi alone and 4/17 pts who discontinued ipi and pembro. Of the 11 pts who discontinued ipi alone for a TRAE, 0 experienced recurrence of the same TRAE during pembro monotherapy and 2 discontinued pembro for a different TRAE (both elevated lipase). Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 90 (59%) pts and were grade 3/4 in 39 (25%). With 7 mo additional follow-up, there were 6 additional responses for an ORR of 61%; the CR rate increased from 10% to 15%. Median DOR was not reached (range, 1.6+ to 18.1+ mo), with 86/93 responders (92%), including 23/23 (100%) with CR, alive and without subsequent PD at cutoff. Median PFS and OS were not reached; 1-y estimates were 69% for PFS and 89% for OS. Conclusions: Pembro 2 mg/kg plus 4 doses of ipi 1 mg/kg has a manageable toxicity profile and provides robust, durable antitumor activity in pts with advanced melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02089685

Here 153 Stage IV melanoma patients (no brain mets) but some with increased LDH were given Pembro 2mg/kg and ipi at only 1mg/kg, together every three weeks for 4 doses and then pembro alone q 2 wks.  There were no treatment related deaths, though ALL patients had side effects, but were grade 3/4 in only 45%.  The way the data was examined ~ with one near endpoint and another 7 months later...proved...AGAIN...that responses can occur late....and as per Weber and Agarwala, when it comes to immunotherapy, "Give the patient time!" ~ for an ultimate ORR of 61% and CR of 15%.  So....these responses are no better than those demonstrated in the ipi/nivo combo.  But...what is interesting is that ipi was dosed at only 1mg/kg whereas in the ipi/nivo combo it is used at 3mg/kg. (AGAIN!!!  Why can't researchers [and Big Pharma!!!!] construct trials so that you can REALLY compare results!!!) At any rate, this tidbit of data may prove important in decreased side effects and it would be important/interesting to see if nivo with ipi at only 1m/kg would continue to do as well as the combo does currently.  I'm betting it would....but that's just me.

While the next couple of articles did not come out of ASCO this year...they pertain to the topic at hand...so I've included them here.

Here, researchers looked at the response to ipi after patients have progressed on pembro:

Antitumor activity of ipilimumab after pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma  KEYNOTE-006 Poster Spotlight: G. Long (Australia).  European Cancer Conference, Jan 2017.

Background: The efficacy and safety of PD-1 inhibition in patients with advanced melanoma previously treated with the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab has been established in several studies, including the KEYNOTE-001 and 002 trials of pembrolizumab. Conversely, the efficacy of CTLA-4 inhibition with ipilimumab following anti–PD-1 therapy is not clearly established. We assessed outcomes in patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-006 (NCT01866319) who received ipilimumab monotherapy after pembrolizumab.

Methods: Patients in KEYNOTE-006 were randomized 1:1:1 to 2 years of pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Q2W (n = 279) 10 mg/kg Q3W (n = 277) or to 4 doses of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W (n = 278). Treatment was continued until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or patient or physician decision. After study treatment discontinuation, subsequent anticancer therapy and outcomes were reported.

Results: As of December 3, 2015, ipilimumab was recorded as a subsequent therapy for 129 pembrolizumab-treated patients, including 97 for whom ipilimumab was the first post-study therapy. Of these 97 patients, 64% had M1c disease, 33% had elevated serum LDH at baseline, and 16% had BRAF^V600-mutant tumors at baseline. Best response to pembrolizumab was PR in 16%, SD in 12%, nonCR/nonPD in 5%, PD in 62%, and nonevaluable/not assessed in 4%. Median duration of pembrolizumab before the start of ipilimumab was 18 weeks, and the median time between the last pembrolizumab dose and first ipilimumab dose was 5 weeks. Median duration of ipilimumab was 8 weeks. The reported ORR for ipilimumab was 14%, with a best overall response of CR in 3%, PR in 11%, SD in 33%, PD in 33%, and unknown in 23%; subsequent progression occurred in 40% of patients with PR and 48% with SD. Best response to pembrolizumab in the 13 patients who responded to ipilimumab was SD in 1, nonCR/nonPD in 2, PD in 8, and not assessed in 2. Best response to ipilimumab in the 16 responders to pembrolizumab who received greater/= to 1 ipilimumab dose was SD in 8, PD in 3, and unknown in 5. Fifty-seven of 97 patients had died, and median OS from randomization was 19.6 months.

Conclusions: Ipilimumab has antitumor activity following pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma, including those whose best response to pembrolizumab was PD, with an ORR consistent with historical data.

So in 97 patients, most of whom had taken pembro for about 18 weeks with a PR in 16% and SD in 12%, PD in 62% (clearly, these were folks who were not responding to pembro as well as the usual data) were, in about 5 weeks placed on ipi at 3mg/kg, with most folks taking it for 8 weeks.  At that point, the ORR to ipi was 14% (which is what responses to ipi usually run at).  Additional data showed:  CR in 3%, PR in 11%, SD in 33%, PD in 33%.  While not great, this certainly shows that if you are not a responder to pembro....switching ASAP to ipi can gain a response of about 15%.  A similar response was attained in the last abstract noted in this post from ASCO 2015:  ASCO 2015: Nivo and Pembro after failing ipi. Ipi after failing anti-PD1.

Here researchers looked at how tumors, and subsequently the patients!!!, responded to pembro:

Immune-Related Tumor Response Dynamics in Melanoma Patients Treated with Pembrolizumab: Identifying Markers for Clinical Outcome and Treatment Decisions. Nishino, Giobbie-Hurder, Manos, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2017 June 7.

Purpose: Characterize tumor burden dynamics during PD-1 inhibitor therapy and investigate the association with overall survival (OS) in advanced melanoma.
Experimental Design: The study included 107 advanced melanoma patients treated with pembrolizumab. Tumor burden dynamics were assessed on serial CT scans using irRECIST and were studied for the association with OS.
Results: Among 107 patients, 96 patients had measurable tumor burden and 11 had nontarget lesions alone at baseline. In the 96 patients, maximal tumor shrinkage ranged from -100% to 567% (median, -18.5%). Overall response rate was 44% (42/96; 5 immune-related complete responses, 37 immune-related partial responses). Tumor burden remained less than 20% increase from baseline throughout therapy in 57 patients (55%). Using a 3-month landmark analysis, patients with less than 20% tumor burden increase from baseline had longer OS than patients with greater than/= to 20% increase (12-month OS rate: 82% vs. 53%). In extended Cox models, patients with less than 20% tumor burden increase during therapy had significantly reduced hazards of death.  Four patients (4%) experienced pseudoprogression; 3 patients had target lesion increase with subsequent response, which was noted after confirmed immune-related progressive disease (irPD). One patient without measurable disease progressed with new lesion that subsequently regressed.
Conclusions: Tumor burden increase of less than 20% from the baseline during pembrolizumab therapy was associated with longer OS, proposing a practical marker for treatment decision guides that needs to be prospectively validated. Pseudoprogressors may experience response after confirmed irPD, indicating a limitation of the current strategy for immune-related response evaluations. Evaluations of patients without measurable disease may require further attention.

Here 96 patients with measureable disease were given pembro.  ORR was the expected 44%.  Folks whose tumor burden increased less than 20% from their baseline, once therapy was started, did best, and this was 55% of the peeps in the study.  They ended up with a longer OS than those whose known tumor burden increased more than 20% from baseline while on pembro.  Of course!  If your tumors mostly just shrink while on treatment...you do better!!!   BUT!  The pseudoprogression thing is real for some...albeit in small numbers...3 patients had target lesions increase in size but went on to gain a response and 1 patient that didn't have measureable disease when they started treatment developed a new lesion that then regressed.

Well, there you have it.  Things remain about as clear as mud if you are a melanoma patient who is progressing on immunotherapy as to trying to decide what to do next!!!  But....it is clear...that there is hope.  Love and luck to all the ratties - c

ASCO 2015: Nivo and Pembro after failing ipi. Ipi after failing anti-PD1.

Survival, biomarker, and toxicity analysis of Nivolumab (NIVO) in patients that progressed on ipi.  ASCO J Clin Oncol 33, 2015. Weber, Gibney, Yu, et al.

PD-1 antibody, nivolumab was administered to 126 patients with unresectable melanoma that failed at least one regimen and were ipi naive (34) or progressed on ipi (92).  Patients refractory to ipi were given Nivo at 3 mg/kg. 2 cohorts were HLA 0201 positive: N = 10 had grade 2 or less ipi related AE's.  N = 21 had dose limiting grade 3/4 ipi related AE's.  A third cohort (N = 61) was not HLA restricted and had experienced grade 2 or less ipi related AE's.  RESULTS:  Median f/u for ipi refractory pts was 18.7 months. Response rate was 29%.  44% had clinical benefit with confirmed partial and complete response or stable disease at 24 weeks.  Median duration of response was 14.3 months.  Median progression free survival was 5.4 months and median overall survival was 20.1 months with 1 and 2 year OS of 69.2% and 39.1%.  Of 14 patients that have completed all therapy or stopped due to toxicity while stable or in response, all remain in remission. Of 21 patients with prior ipi induced grade 3/4 AE's, only 2 had subsequent dose limiting (and different) AE's with nivo, with 8 PR and 5 SD seen.  All 8 PR and 3 SD are without progression.  Biomarker studies showed that circulating MDSC (myeloid derived suppressor cells) were associated with progression and worse OS.  CONCLUSION:  Prior ipi related AE's were not replicated by NIVO.

Safety of pembrolizumab in patients who stopped ipilimumab due to immune-related adverse events.  ASCO J Clin Oncol 33, 2015.  Shoushtari, Postow, Horvat, Chapman, et al.

Pembro which blocks programmed death-1 was recently FDA approved (as was Nivo) for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma after progression on ipi.  Ipi is associated with immune mediated adverse events which can lead to treatment cessation.  Researchers collected date on patients with melanoma who received pembro at Sloan Kettering and had received less that 4 doses of ipi due to AE's grade 2 or higher requiring steroids.  RESULTS:  N= 10.  12 AE's contributed to ipi cessation:  colitis, neuropathy, ALT elevation (increased liver enzymes), rash.  All were given steroids and 3 required infliximab.  Median pembro doses given = 5.  7/10 patients are still getting treatment.  2/10 had treatment with pembro interrupted due to AE's that required steroids.  Neither were the AE seen when on ipi.  CONCLUSION:  Patients who stop ipi due to AE's may have different AE's on pembro.  Severe AE's on ipi does not preclude a patient from taking pembro.


Efficacy and toxicity of treatment with the anti-CTLA4 antibody Ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma who have progressed on anti-PD1 therapy.  ASCO J Clin Oncol 33, 2015.  Prithviraj, McArthur, Atkinson, et al.

Immunotherapy with anti-CTLA4 (ipi) and anti-PD1 antibodies has demonstrated overall survival benefits in patients with metastatic melanoma compared to standard therapy.  Early clinical trails suggests that combination therapy with ipi and anti-PD1 increases the response rate sompared to single agent treatment however is associated with increased toxicity.  Anti-PD1 therapy demonstrated equal efficacy and toxicity in patients that progressed on or were naive to treatment with the anti-CTLA-4 antibody Ipilimumab.  So far, only very limited evidence exists regarding efficacy and toxicity of ipi in pateints that have progressed on treatment with an anti-PD1 agent.  Study:  N= 10 patients who had received Nivo/Pembro in a clinical trial and were subsequently treated with ipi.  Ipi was given at 3mg/kg every 3 wks for 4 cycles and response was assesses by CT scan 4-6 wks after last dose.  Results:  Median time between last dose of anti-PD1 and ipi was 7 months.  4/10 patients had increased LDH on commencement of ipi therapy.  1/10 patients achieved a partial remission as their best response to anti-PD1 therapy with an additional 5/10 having stable disease. 4/10 were given all 4 doses of ipi.  F/U after last dose of ipi has been more than 3 months.  1/10 patients achieved a response to ipi with another 1/10 having prolonged stable disease.  3/10 experienced grade 3/4 immune related AE.  Conclusion: Ipi can induce responses in patients who have failed anti-PD1.  The response rate appears similar compared to patients who have not received prior anti-PD1 therapy.  AE's were observed.  Significance of these observation remains to be seen.

The first two reports are not really news.  Patients who had to stop taking ipi due to side effects can take anti-PD1 (Nivo OR Pembro) without being cursed with their prior side effects from ipi and gain a response.  Additionally, and this is newer as fewer patients have reached this position, you can get a response from ipi after having taken anti-PD1. And ~ myeloid derived suppressor cells need to get out of our way!!! Hang in there ratties.  Sometimes it's a long ride! - c

Melanoma Intel: A primer for current standard of care and treatment options

I answer questions on melanoma boards or via email about treatment options at least every other week. It suddenly dawned on me that putting the information together in a blog post would save me repeated re-writes and help folks in the process.  HOWEVER, this is not an all inclusive listing. Rather, this is a basic guide to use in starting your research or discussions with your provider regarding melanoma care.  It is also primarily directed toward those of you who are Stage III/IV.

As recently as 2010, NONE of the current, most effective treatments for melanoma were FDA approved. And no matter what option you think fits you best, it is essential that you be seen by an oncologist who specializes in...or at the very least, has treated many patients with...melanoma.  Here's the down and dirty:

SURGERY

Surgery remains a good choice for melanoma. Clearly this is the case for new cutaneous lesions!!! Once a lesion is gone...it's gone!! This results in an immediate decrease in your tumor burden – always a good thing. However, if by chance you are looking for a clinical trial (though these days, especially for newly diagnosed Stage 3b and Stage IV patients, there are many viable treatment options without resorting to that) they sometimes require “measurable disease” so leaving at least one tumor in place would be required. This would also be the case if you were looking to utilize 'intralesional therapies' {info below}.

RADIATION

Radiation, when combined with immunotherapy, can be a very good treatment option for melanoma. Together, radiation and immunotherapy, illicit responses in melanoma that are greater than either treatment used as a single agent. However, targeted radiation (SRS – stereotactic radiation or Gamma Knife) is the most effective whether you are talking about brain tumors or lesions located elsewhere in the body. We have learned that whole brain radiation (WBR) is not effective in melanoma and can lead to debilitation. While there are those who avail themselves of this treatment due to extreme circumstances, it should not be the recommendation right out of the box for those with brain tumors. Even multiple tumors can be treated simultaneously with SRS.

IMMUNOTHERAPY

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

Old school immunotherapy

Interferon

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

IL-2 (Interleukin 2)

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

Current Immunotherapy (also referred to as Check Point Inhibitors)

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

Ipilimumab is a monoclonal anti-body that is used to restart the immune system by targeting CTLA-4, a protein receptor that actually turns the immune response OFF!!! It was approved for melanoma (Stage IV or unresectable Stage III) in 2011. It was approved as an adjuvant treatment for melanoma in 2015. Ipi is administered via an IV infusion every 3 weeks, for a total of 4 doses, at 3mg/kg for Stage IV patients and 10mg/kg for adjuvant therapy. Some adjuvant treatment plans continue ipi at that same dosage but every 12 weeks for up to 3 years. Melanoma patients given ipi can attain a response rate of about 15%. Responses can be durable.    Here are two resports:  Melanoma patients...alive and kicking 10 years after ipi!  and  Ipi for melanoma...the data keeps pouring in...and it's pretty good!  Patients experience more side effects with ipi than they do with anti-PD-1 products.  Ipi at 10mg/kg produces more side effects than ipi at 3mg/kg.  Ipi is also FDA approved in combination with nivolumab (2015) and is being studied currently in combination with pembrolizumab. {More info below.}

Anti-PD-1

      

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

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

  

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

Sometimes pictures tell the story better:

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

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

From the November 2015 link - Here are more ways Opdivo has been approved and is helping others:

• Advanced renal cell carcinoma (11/23/2015)
• Advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer - after platinum based chemo (10/9/2015)
• In the Nivo/Opdivo with Ipililmumab/Yervoy combo for BRAF V600 advanced melanoma (10/1/2015)
• Advanced non-small cell lung cancer - after platinum based chemo (3/4/2015)
• For melanoma, after failing ipi, and if BRAF positive, BRAFi (12/22/14) 

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

Pembro was similarly approved for melanoma in 2014.  Since then it has been approved in various algorithms for NSCLC and head and neck squamous cell cancer

Response rate and side effects for advanced melanoma patients:

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

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

Responses can be durable!!!  There is every reason to expect that responses to anti-PD-1 will be at least as durable (and probably more so) than those to ipi.  This post includes neat charts regarding response and durability to Pembro:  Dr. Daud reviews ASCO 2016 - immunology updates for melanoma

Side effects are similar for both drugs and are those typical for immunotherapy, but less severe than those encountered with ipi. On the topic of side effects...they SHOULD be treated!!!  As quickly as possible, often with a break from medication and immunosuppressive drugs as required.  While oncologists not familiar with immunotherapy may fear decreased therapeutic response if steroids are used...THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!  Here's a post (with multiple links within related to treating immunotherapy side effects:  Yep! Immunotherapy can work in the brain...and pseudoprogression can be real!!

Dosing:

Pembro is dosed at 200 mg IV every 3 weeks.  Nivo is dosed at 240 mg IV every two weeks or 480mg IV every 4 weeks, endpoints vary per doc, patient and institution. When ipi is combined with nivo, response rates in melanoma rise to 50+%, though side effects do as well, though mostly due to ipi.  For the combo, dosage is:  nivo at 1 mg/kg followed by ipi  at 3 mg/kg on the same day, every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then nivo alone at 240 mg q 2 wks or 480 mg q 4 wks. Many patients cannot tolerate all 4 doses of the ipi/nivo combo due to side effects.  However, outcomes can be good even if you have to stop early. Here's a report from ASCO 2016:  Nivo plus ipi, CheckMate 069 trial....18 month OS similar even if you stop meds due to side effects!!!  Additionally, most folks can go on to tolerate nivo alone, once their side effects are brought under control with a medication break and/or steroids.  Pembro in combination with ipi is being studied.

TARGETED THERAPY

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

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

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

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

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

DRUGS, administration, and side effects:

BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) drugs include:  Vemurafenib (Zelboraf), Dabrafenib (Tafinlar), Sorafenib (Nexavar), and Encorafenib
MEK inhibitors (MEKi) include:  Trametinib (Mekinist), Cobimetinib (Cotellic) and Binimetinib (not yet given a brand name)

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

EFFECTIVENESS and tumor work-around:

For patients who are BRAF positive, BRAF inhibitors combined with a MEK inhibitor have impressive response rates, clearing tumors rapidly, and often completely, in about 70-80% of patients and are effective in the brain and body. However, those responses are not very durable, with most tumors learning to work around the inhibition in about 7-9 months. BUT!!!!  By using an "alternate dosing schedule" (one that is varied, rather than absolute with an 'every so many hours daily' dosing pattern), combining BRAFi with MEKi, as well as the development of the newer drugs (Here's a post out of ASCO this year:  Encorafenib/binimetinib, a BRAF/MEK combo = 14.9 month PFS) that time can be stretched out a bit.  Furthermore, despite the statistics, there are some melanoma peeps whose melanoma has been successfully managed for years on BRAF/MEK combo's!!  Finally, some melanoma specialists use BRAF/MEK combo's in BRAF positive patients, to rapidly decrease the tumor burden, then switch the patient to slower acting, but more durable immunotherapy.  And...in the realm of 'the latest and greatest', researchers are working on combining BRAF/MEK with immunotherapy.  Here's a recent post on the topic with more links within:  ASCO 2017: Atezo (anti-PDL1) with Cobimetinib (MEKi) and Vemurafenib (BRAFi) for BRAF V-600 melanoma

DECIDING on immunotherapy vs targeted therapy in the BRAF positive patient - can be tricky! Here is a post addressing that issue via a discussion between melanoma experts:  Pick your poison: Weber and Agarwala discuss combination therapy for melanoma

INTRALSIONAL (also referred to as 'intratumoral') THERAPY

Intralesional drugs include (but are not limited to):

CAVATAK - derived from the Coxsackievirus
T-VEC - also called OncoVEX, Imlygic,  or Talimogene Laherparepvec - uses the herpes virus with GM-CSF
PV-10 - derived from Rose Bengal
HF10 - also derived from HSV
SD101 - a TLR9 agonist
IL-2 - see note above, is also being used

These drugs are injected directly into a relatively superficial melanoma tumor.  They have been found to be effective in not only eradicating the tumor into which they have been injected, but 'by-stander' lesions as well. Researchers feel that they have the most promise when they are combined with a systemic treatment like immunotherapy.  I summarized response rates, side effects, and pretty much everything else current about these drugs in this post from this year's ASCO reports on all of them: All things intralesional/intratumoral

FUTURE TREATMENT OPTIONS

Despite the success that these therapies have had for many melanoma patients, myself included, they are insufficient for far too many!  Luckily, research and drug development continues.  Many researchers have noted that combo's are likely to be the future of melanoma treatment.  Work is ongoing on IDO inhibitors, ERK inhibitors, vaccines (though I fear we are not there yet), new anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs, anti-LAG-3, CD47 blockers, HDAC inhibitors, and more.

I hope this primer will be helpful.  What has served me best in attaining effective treatment for my melanoma has been seeking out a melanoma specialist and never being afraid to ask questions. Asking this question of my doctor may have been the most beneficial:  "What treatment would you recommend if it were YOU or your brother, sister, wife, father, mother.... in need?"

I wish you all my very best. Hang in there.  And....thanks, ratties! - love, c

P.S. If all the acronyms are driving you crazy, here's a post that defines at least some of them:  Melanoma abbreviations ~ and random thoughts on posting melanoma crap-ola....
P.S.S.  A sense of humor really does help!!  - c

What to do in melanoma after anti-PD1 fails or upon regression after a response?

In melanoma world we are lucky to have anti-PD-1 and its 40% response rate.  However, as more of us have taken it, and failed...or even responded...but progressed later....the pressing question becomes...   Now what??????

Here are some articles that attempt to answer...

There was this (with a couple of links within):  ASCO 2016 - Other therapies after failing Pembro...and...trial with OX40 - alone and with Pembro...still enrolling...

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

Now there is this case study...

Reinduction of PD1-inhibitor therapy: first experience in eight patients with metastatic melanoma. Blasig, Bender, Hassel, et al. Melanoma Res. 2017 Mar 2.

Significant progress has been made in the treatment of metastatic melanoma during the last years. Approval of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies has been achieved recently. The sequencing of these therapies is an important issue. Here, we report our experience with the treatment and retreatment with PD1-inhibitors (PD1i) in eight patients. The patients (two female and seven male with a median age of 70 years, all melanoma stage IV, M1c) underwent a first treatment period with PD1i for a median of 5.5 months. Three (37.5%) patients had a stable disease as best response, two (25%) showed progression, two (25%) showed partial response, and one (12.5%) achieved complete remission. PD1i was discontinued due to disease progression in seven patients and due to side effects (pancreatitis) in one patient. Patients were subsequently treated with ipilimumab (n=2), or chemotherapy (n=4), or no other medical treatment (n=2). All eight patients were subsequently retreated with PD1i for a median of 2.5 months. One (12.5%) developed a partial response, whereas in three patients (37.5%) the disease was stabilized. PD1i have shown a high and durable response rate in the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma. Our study suggests PD1i retreatment as a reasonable option for selected patients. Further investigations are needed to verify the value of PD1i re-exposure and to identify subgroups of patients who can benefit.

Well, that's something.  But, too many of us need more!!!  Hang in there ratties!! - c

Anti-PD1 success in melanoma despite prexisting autoimmune disease, a case report:

In light of the very serious immune related side effects that are showing up in patients treated with immunotherapy, it would be pretty frightening to need such treatment knowing you already have an underlying autoimmune disease! (Although I took Opdivo knowing I have always had asthma and a family history positive for ankylosing spondylitis.)  On the other hand, it is now accepted that despite experiencing unfortunate immune related side effects when on ipi (for example) many patients go on to take anti-PD1 with no repeat of those problems and a positive response to melanoma can be attained....as was noted here:  Good news: melanoma patients who failed ipi had a response to nivo with no increased side effects
And here:  Nivo and pembro after failing ipi and vice versa

Successful Anti-PD-1 Antibody Treatment in a Metastatic Melanoma Patient With Known Severe Autoimmune Disease.  Maul LV¹, Weichenthal M, Kähler KC, Hauschild A.  J Immunother. 2016 Mar 28.

Pembrolizumab, an anti-programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 on the basis of improved progression-free and overall survival in metastatic melanoma. We report for the first time a successful treatment with a programmed death-1 antibody in a 69-year-old metastastic melanoma patient with a Churg-Strauss lung vasculitis and a prior ipilimumab-induced autoimmune colitis. This case report suggests that pembrolizumab can be given with caution to patients with underlying autoimmune disease. As the use of checkpoint inhibitors expands, knowledge about their safety in patients with underlying autoimmune diseases will become increasingly important, in particular because these patients are typically excluded from clinical trials with immune-checkpoint inhibitors.

For what it's worth - c