Showing posts sorted by relevance for query necrosis. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query necrosis. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, November 4, 2021

Brain Mets - A mixture of recent reports

I've covered the data related to brain mets in melanoma for a long time - A few zillion relative reports  

Unfortunately, some older posts are at the top of that list, so scroll through for newer posts if you are interested.  Also unfortunately, not a lot has changed since many of those postings, but here are some reports published over the past year (my comments in red as ever) ~

Tumor Control Probability of Radiosurgery and Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases.  Redmond, Gui, Benedict, et al.  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.  Dec 2020.

Purpose: As part of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, tumor control probability (TCP) after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) for brain metastases was modeled based on pooled dosimetric and clinical data from published English-language literature.

Methods and materials: PubMed-indexed studies published between January 1995 and September 2017 were used to evaluate dosimetric and clinical predictors of TCP after SRS or fSRS for brain metastases. Eligible studies had greater than/= to10 patients and included detailed dose-fractionation data with corresponding greater than/= to 1-year local control (LC) data, typically evaluated as a greater than 20% increase in diameter of the targeted lesion using the pre-SRS diameter as a reference.

Results: Of 2951 potentially eligible manuscripts, 56 included sufficient dose-volume data for analyses. Accepting that necrosis and pseudoprogression can complicate the assessment of LC, for tumors less than/= to 20 mm, single-fraction doses of 18 and 24 Gy corresponded with greater than 85% and 95% 1-year LC rates, respectively. For tumors 21 to 30 mm, an 18 Gy single-fraction dose was associated with 75% LC. For tumors 31 to 40 mm, a 15 Gy single-fraction dose yielded 69% LC. For 3- to 5-fraction fSRS using doses in the range of 27 to 35 Gy, 80% 1-year LC has been achieved for tumors of 21 to 40 mm in diameter.

Conclusions: TCP for SRS and fSRS are presented. For small lesions less than/= to 20 mm, single doses of ≈18 Gy appear generally associated with excellent rates of LC; for melanoma, higher doses seem warranted. For larger lesions greater than 20 mm, local control rates appear to be ≈ 70% to 75% with usual doses of 15 to 18 Gy, and in this setting, fSRS regimens should be considered. Greater consistency in reporting of dosimetric and LC data is needed to facilitate future pooled analyses. As systemic and biologic therapies evolve, updated analyses will be needed to further assess the necessity, efficacy, and toxicity of SRS and fSRS.

Not stuff that we as melanoma patients have a lot of control of or say in - but there you go.

Long-term disease outcome and volume-based decision strategy in a large cohort of multiple brain metastases treated with a mono-isocentric linac-based Stereotactic Radiosurgery technique.  Alongi, Nicosia, Figlia, et al.  Clin Transl Oncol.  August 2021.

Purpose: Radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective treatment option for brain metastases (BMs). Long-term results of the first worldwide experience with a mono-isocentric, non-coplanar, linac-based stereotactic technique in the treatment of multiple BMs are reported.

Methods: Patients with multiple BMs, life expectancy greater than 3 months, and good performance status (less than/= to 2) were treated with simultaneous SRS with volumetric modulated arc technique. Data were retrospectively evaluated.

Results: 172 patients accounting for 1079 BMs were treated at our institution from 2017 to 2020. The median number of treated metastases was 4 (range 2-22). Primary tumor histology was: lung (44.8%), breast (32%), and melanoma (9.4%). The 2-year LPFS was 71.6%, respectively. A biological effective dose (BED) greater than/= to 51.3 Gy10 correlated with higher local control. Uncontrolled systemic disease and melanoma histology were independent prognostic factors correlated with decreased iPFS. Patients with greater than 10 BMs had a trend towards shorter iPFS. 31 patients received multiple SRS courses (2-7) in case of intracranial progression. The median iOS was 22.4 months. Brainstem metastases and total PTV greater than 7.1 cc correlated with shorter iOS. The 1- and 2-year WBRT-free survival was 83.2% and 61.1%, respectively.

Conclusion: Long-term results in a large patient population treated with a mono-isocentric, dedicated technique demonstrated its effectiveness and safety also in the case of multiple courses. The shortened treatment time and the possibility to safely spare healthy brain tissue allows the safe treatment of patients with a large number of metastases and to deliver multiple courses of SRS. In selected cases, the administration of WBRT can be delayed.

Not all melanoma patients here.  But good to know that multiple rounds of SRS were effective and well tolerated in some of these patients.

Time from stereotactic radiosurgery to immunotherapy in patients with melanoma brain metastases and impact on outcome.  Wegner, Abel, D’Amico, et al.  J Neurooncol.  Mar 2021.

Background: The role of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma has expanded over the past decade triggering questions regarding the combination and timing of immunotherapy and radiation for brain metastases. We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to see if the time from radiation to immunotherapy in patients with melanoma brain metastases had an impact on survival.

Methods: We queried the NCDB from 2010 to 2015 for patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with immunotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was done to determine a timepoint associated with outcome. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of survival. Propensity matching was done to account for indication bias.

Results: We identified 247 patients meeting the above criteria. The median patient age was 62 years (27-90) and the vast majority were Caucasian (99%). The median SRS dose was 22 Gy (18-24 Gy).The median time to SRS was 39 days (0-344) and the median time to immunotherapy was 56 days (6-454). The ROC analysis revealed 8 days from SRS to immunotherapy as associated with outcome. Fifty-six patients had immunotherapy prior to SRS, 30 patients had immunotherapy within 0-7 days of SRS, and the remaining 161 had immunotherapy greater than 7 days from SRS. Three year survival rates were 21%, 55%, and 35% for those timeframes, respectively. Propensity matching of the 0-7 day and greater than 7 day groups yielded 28 pairs and Kaplan Meier analysis showed 3 year overall survival of 55% and 35%, in favor of immunotherapy within 7 days of SRS. Multivariable Cox regression identified lack of extracranial disease, more recent year of treatment, and time from SRS to immunotherapy of 0-7 days as predictors of improved survival.

Conclusions: Immunotherapy within 7 days of SRS shows a possible association with improve outcomes in patients with brain metastases from melanoma.

Many other studies have already demonstrated this fact - outcomes are better when you DO NOT delay immunotherapy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Again = a zillion reports:  Radiation AND immunotherapy

Management of melanoma brain metastases: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines by Cancer Council Australia.  Hong, Waldstein, Shivalingam, et al.  Eur J Cancer.  Jan 2021.

Introduction: The brain is a common site of metastatic disease for patients with advanced melanoma. Brain metastasis portends a poor prognosis, often causing deterioration in neurological function and quality of life, and leading to neurological death. Treatment approaches including surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy can lead to better control of this problem. Therefore, appropriate guidelines for the management of melanoma brain metastases need to be established, with regular updating when new treatment options become available.

Methods: A multidisciplinary working party established by Cancer Council Australia has produced up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of melanoma. After selecting key clinical questions, a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted, followed by systematic review of those studies. Data were summarized and the evidence was assessed, leading to the development of recommendations.

Main recommendations: Symptomatic lesions are best treated with surgery, when possible; this provides safe and effective local control. For patients with single or a small number of asymptomatic brain metastases, stereotactic radiotherapy is recommended, but in asymptomatic patients who have not previously received systemic treatment, drug therapy can be considered as a first-line treatment option. Whole brain radiotherapy may provide palliative benefits in patients with multiple brain metastases. Whenever possible, melanoma patients with brain metastases should be managed by a multidisciplinary team of melanoma specialists that considers the optimal combination and sequencing of surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy.

All conclusions seem true based on current data.  There is even this confirming report from 2019 regarding immunotherapy as first line treatment (without radiation) for folks with melanoma brain metsIPI/NIVO - results - in melanoma brain mets and long term follow-up in advanced melanoma  However, as I noted in that post - with the vast preponderance of evidence showing that responses are better when immunotherapy is COMBINED with radiation, you would have a hard time convincing me to roll with immunotherapy alone.  But, maybe that's just me!

Sustainable responses in metastatic melanoma patients with and without brain metastases after elective discontinuation of anti-PD1-based immunotherapy due to complete response.  Dimitriou, Zaremba, Allayous, et al. Eur J Cancer.  Jul 2021.

Background: Anti-PD1-based immunotherapy is currently used in most patients with advanced melanoma. Despite the remarkable data regarding overall survival, the optimal treatment duration is still unknown.

Methods: We evaluated the outcome of 125 patients with advanced melanoma with and without brain metastases (MBM), treated either with anti-PD1 monotherapy (N = 97) or combined with anti-CTLA4 (N = 28) after elective treatment discontinuation due to complete response (CR) (group A, N = 86), or treatment-limiting toxicity (N = 33) and investigator's decision (ID, N = 6) (group B) with subsequent CR.

Results: For group A, median duration of treatment (mDoT) was 22 months (range 5-49) and median time to CR 9 months (range 2-47). Accordingly, mDoT for group B was 3 months (range 0-36) and median time to CR 7 months (range 1-32). Seven patients from group A and three from group B experienced disease recurrence. Off-treatment survival was not reached. Median off-treatment response time (mOTRt) was 19 months (range 0-42) and 25 months (range 0-66), respectively. For MBM, mOTRt was 17 months (range 7-41) and 28 months (range 9-39), respectively. After a median follow-up of 38 months (range 9-70), seven (5.6%) patients had deceased, one (0.8%) due to melanoma.

Conclusions: Treatment discontinuation is feasible also in patients with MBM. Efficacy outcomes seemed to be similar in both groups of patients who achieved CR, regardless of reason for discontinuation. In patients who experienced disease relapse, treatment re-challenge with anti-PD1 resulted in subsequent renewed response.

Deciding when to stop therapy - esp when there has been no complete response, remains hard.

First line immunotherapy extends brain metastasis free survival, improves overall survival, and reduces the incidence of brain metastasis in patients with advanced melanoma.  Wang, Haaland, Hu-Lieskovan, et al.  Cancer Rep.  June 2021.

Background: Recent advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy have improved the prognosis of melanoma patients but brain metastasis remains a major challenge. Currently, it is unclear how existing therapies can be best used to prevent or treat brain metastasis in melanoma patients.

Aims: We aimed to assess brain metastasis free survival (BMFS), overall survival (OS), incidence of brain metastases, and sequencing strategies of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma.

Methods and results: We retrospectively analyzed 683 patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma treated with first line (1L) immunotherapy (N = 266) or targeted therapy (N = 417). The primary outcome was BMFS. Secondary outcomes included OS of all patients and incidence of brain metastases in patients without documented brain metastases prior to 1L therapy. The median BMFS was 13.7 months among all patients. The median BMFS for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy was 41.9 months and targeted therapy was 11.0 months. Median OS results were qualitatively similar to BMFS results. The cumulative incidence of brain metastases for patients receiving 1L targeted therapy was higher than for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy. Patients receiving 1L anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy only or followed by second line (2L) targeted therapy had better BMFS, improved OS, and reduced incidence of brain metastases, than patients receiving 1L combination BRAF and MEK targeted therapy followed by 2L immunotherapy.

Conclusion: Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with 1L immunotherapy have significantly longer BMFS and OS, and reduced incidence of brain metastases, compared with those treated with 1L targeted therapy. Further studies evaluating the ability of immunotherapy and targeted therapy to improve OS and prevent brain metastases are warranted.

Interesting.

Melanoma brain metastasis presentation, treatment, and outcomes in the age of targeted and immunotherapies.  Bander, Yuan, Carnevale, et al.  Cancer.  June 2021.

Background: Historically, the prognosis for patients who have melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) has been dismal. However, breakthroughs in targeted and immunotherapies have improved long-term survival in those with advanced melanoma. Therefore, MBM presentation, prognosis, and the use of multimodality central nervous system (CNS)-directed treatment were reassessed.

Methods: In this retrospective study, the authors evaluated patients with MBM who received treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to describe overall survival (OS). Recursive partitioning analysis and time-dependent multivariable Cox modeling were used to assess prognostic variables and to associate CNS-directed treatments with OS.

Results: Four hundred twenty-five patients with 2488 brain metastases were included. The median OS after an MBM diagnosis was 8.9 months. Patients who were diagnosed with MBM between 2015 and 2019 experienced longer OS compared to those who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 (OS, 13.0 months vs 7.0 months). Prognostic multivariable modeling significantly associated shortened OS independently with leptomeningeal dissemination, increasing numbers of brain metastases at diagnosis, earlier MBM diagnosis year, higher serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase, receipt of immunotherapy before MBM diagnosis, and the presence of extracranial disease. The use of different CNS-directed treatment modalities was associated with presenting symptoms, diagnosis year, number and size of brain metastases, and the presence of extracranial disease. Multivariable analysis demonstrated improved survival for patients who underwent craniotomy.

Conclusions: The prognosis for patients with MBM has improved within the last 5 years, coinciding with the approval of PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade and combined BRAF/MEK targeting. Improving survival reflects and may influence the willingness to use aggressive multimodality treatment for MBM.

Lay summary: Historically, melanoma brain metastases (MBM) have carried a poor survival prognosis of 4 to 6 months; however, the introduction of immunotherapy and targeted precision medicines has altered the survival curve for advanced melanoma. In this large, single-institution, contemporary cohort, the authors demonstrate a significant increase in survival of patients with MBM to 13 months within the last 5 years of the study. A worse prognosis for patients with MBM was significantly associated with the number of metastases at diagnosis, previous exposure to immunotherapy, spread of disease to the leptomeningeal compartment, serum lactate dehydrogenase elevation, and the presence of extracranial disease. The current age of systemic treatments has also been accompanied by shifts in the use of central nervous system-directed therapies.

Yep.  Things are better.  But, not yet good enough.  Still, we know - if you have melanoma brain mets - hit 'em hard with everything you've got!  No waiting.  No pussy footing around!!!

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may increase the incidence of treatment-related necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Kim, Suh, Kim, et al.  Eur Radiol.  June 2021.

Objectives: To compare the incidence of treatment-related necrosis between combination SRS+ICI therapy and SRS therapy alone in patients with brain metastases from melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A systematic literature search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed up to August 10, 2020. The difference in the pooled incidence of treatment-related necrosis after SRS+ICI or SRS alone was evaluated. The cumulative incidence of treatment-related necrosis at the specific time point after the treatment was calculated and plotted. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were additionally performed.

Results: Sixteen studies (14 on melanoma, 2 on NSCLC) were included. In NSCLC brain metastasis, the reported incidences of treatment-related necrosis in SRS+ICI and SRS alone ranged 2.9-3.4% and 0-2.9%, respectively. Meta-analysis was conducted including 14 studies on melanoma brain metastasis. The incidence of treatment-related necrosis was higher in SRS+ICI than SRS alone (16.0% vs. 6.5%). The incidence showed rapid increase until 12 months after the SRS when combined with ICI therapy (14%) and its pace of increase slowed thereafter. Histopathologic diagnosis as the reference standard for treatment-related necrosis and inclusion of only symptomatic cases were the source of heterogeneity in SRS+ICI.

Conclusions: Treatment-related necrosis tended to occur 2.4 times more frequently in the setting of combination SRS+ICI therapy compared with SRS alone in melanoma brain metastasis showing high cumulative incidence within the first year. Treatment-related necrosis should be considered when SRS+ICI combination therapy is used for melanoma brain metastasis, especially in the first year.

Key points: • Treatment-related necrosis occurred 2.4 times more frequently in the setting of combination SRS+ICI therapy compared with SRS alone in melanoma brain metastasis. • Treatment-related necrosis more frequently occurred in brain metastases from melanoma than NSCLC. • Reference standard for treatment-related necrosis and inclusion of only symptomatic treatment-related necrosis were a significant source of heterogeneity, indicating varying definitions of treatment-related necrosis in the literature need to be unified.

First of all, melanoma sucks.  Melanoma brain mets suck even more.  Yes, treatment necrosis is a real thing.  Yes, it seems to happen in melanoma brain mets more than in brain mets caused by other cancers.  BUT!  What 'cha gonna do?  Not treat and risk more mets and less survival?  Plus, this is a meta-analysis - NOT a real report with full intel on every rattie studied.  There are studies with real ratties that show this:  Immunotherapy with SRS does NOT increase risk of radiation necrosis in melanoma brain mets!!!

The combined use of steroids and immune checkpoint inhibitors in brain metastasis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Jessurun, Hulsbergen, Wit, et al.  Neuro Oncol.  August 2021.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been a breakthrough for selected cancer patients, including those with brain metastases (BMs). Likewise, steroids have been an integral component of symptomatic management of BM patients. However, clinical evidence on the interaction between ICI and steroids in BM patients is conflicting and has not adequately been summarized thus far. Hence, the aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the association between steroid use and overall survival (OS) in BM patients receiving ICI.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects models across included studies.

Results: After screening 1145 abstracts, 15 observational studies were included. Fourteen studies reported sufficient data for meta-analysis, comprising 1102 BM patients of which 32.1% received steroids. In the steroid group, median OS ranged from 2.9 to 10.2 months. In the nonsteroid group, median OS ranged from 4.9 to 25.1 months. Pooled results demonstrated significantly worse OS and systemic progression-free survival in the steroid group. Stratified analysis showed a consistent effect across the melanoma subgroup; not in the lung cancer subgroup. No significant association was shown between steroid use and intracranial PFS.

Conclusions: Administration of steroids was associated with significantly worse OS and PFS in BM patients receiving ICI. Further research on dose, timing, and duration of steroids is needed to elucidate the cause of this association and optimize outcomes in BM patients receiving ICI.

This article is proof that I share all the data that I find - even if it doesn't jive with most of the previous data.  To whit - steroids do NOT diminish response in melanoma patients - and are often in fact,  REQUIRED in order for melanoma patients to continue their life saving treatment!!!  While there may be some truth in the conclusion that folks who have to undergo steroids while on immunotherapy have a decreased response compared to those who do not - I think the REASON for that may not be the one first concluded - ie steroids themselves diminished the response.  RATHER, patients who must use steroids to tolerate immunotherapy often are unable to complete a sufficient quantity of immunotherapy to treat their disease effectively because they could not tolerate it.  The lack of knowledge about the specific patients in this review of 14 other studies demonstrates the severe limitations that this kind of compiled data in meta-analysis contains.  My opinions about the abstract of this study are much like those I discussed in a similar report from September of this year:  What to do about immunotherapy if you - take steroids or infliximab for side effects? Have a pre-existing autoimmune disease?????  If you are interested in the effects of steroids on immunotherapy, it is worth your time.  With repeated thanks to the Edster for help in analysis and provision of the complete article.

The studies in this post were all retrospective meta-analysis studies.  While reports like these can give a useful overview of the state of the science they are decidedly lacking in REASONS for outcomes.  For instance, there are absolutely NO elephants in Chattanooga, TN at this moment.  Further, I just clapped my hands three times.  Are those two things related?  Probably not!!!  Concurrent events and causative events are not the same.  Counting up a tally from some carefully chosen studies can be informative.  But, the results must be considered in the light of how they were attained and with recognition of the limited specifics known about the individual ratties in each of the studies, multiplied by how many studies and ratties there were.

See, Bentie?  All those crazy doctoral level statistic courses at UAB were worth the price of admission and tears of confusion, right????  BAHAHAHA!!!

Hang tough, ratties.  Melanoma isn't easy.  But there is hope. - c

Monday, May 15, 2017

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


We already know that folks who get immunotherapy WITH (or as soon as possible relative to) SRS [stereotactic radiation] therapy for brain mets do best.  Here's a post with multiple links that covers that and then some: Anti-PD-1 works best with SRS for brain mets in melanoma, Don't wait to add anti-PD-1 to SRS for brain mets, etc, etc!!!!!

Yet, patients are STILL being advised BY THEIR ONCOLOGISTS, "Oh, my goodness, no!!  We can't do both immunotherapy and SRS to brain mets at the same time.!  It would be too toxic.  It would increase the risk of radiation necrosis!"

Now, radiation necrosis is a real problem.  It is a complication that arises for far too many.  However, combining radiation with immunotherapy does NOT increase the risk!  Check out this review of 137 patients and their 1,094 brain lesions:

Radiation necrosis with stereotactic radiosurgery combined with CTLA-4 blockade and PD-1 inhibition for treatment of intracranial disease in metastatic melanoma. Fang, Jiang, Allen, et al.  J Neurooncol. 2017 May 12.  
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated remarkable benefits in cancer patients. However, concern regarding toxicity in the setting of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is often raised. In this study, we characterize radiation necrosis (RN) following immunotherapy and SRS. Melanoma patients treated with SRS and anti-CTLA-4 and/or anti-PD-1 at our institution from January 2006 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Overall survival (OS) and time to RN were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed to identify predictors of radiation necrosis-free survival (RNFS) and RN risk. One-hundred thirty-seven patients with 1094 treated lesions over 296 SRS sessions were analyzed. Median follow-up was 9.8 months from SRS. Rate of RN was 27% of patients with median time to RN of 6 months. Median OS from SRS treatment was 16.9 months. RNFS at 6 months, 1 and 2 years was 92.7, 83.0, and 81.2%. Treatment with chemotherapy within 6 months of SRS was associated with worse RNFS at 1 year. On multivariate analysis, chemotherapy within 6 months and increased number of lesions treated were predictive of increased RN risk, whereas immunotherapy type and targeted therapy were not predictive. Median target volume of lesions that developed RN was greater than that of lesions that did not. Concurrent treatment with chemotherapy, larger size and number of lesions treated were predictive of RN. Immunotherapy type and timing proximity to SRS were not associated with RN risk.
So, this review of real ratties demonstrates that having chemo (OMG????!!!!), larger sized brain lesions, and a greater number of lesions treated DOES increase the risk of radiation necrosis - giving immunotherapy (ipi or anti-PD-1) and timing proximity to SRS treatment does NOT!!!!!

Could we get some nit-wit oncologists/radiation oncologist to read their own professional journals....or this blog?  Well, if you get told something similar to the little talk outlined above....PRINT and DELIVER this report to them! Hang tough, dear ratties! - c

Monday, June 12, 2017

ASCO 2017: Radiation plus ipi plus CD47 blockade for melanoma in mice = promising


CD47  is ~ "(Cluster of Differentiation 47) also known as integrin associated protein (IAP) is a transmembrane protein that in humans is encoded by the CD47 gene. CD47 belongs to the immunoglobbin superfamily and partners with membrane intergrins and also binds the ligands thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) and signal-regulatory protein alpha (SIRP alpha). This is because the protein IAP produced by CD-47 acts as a don't eat me signal to the immune system and drives organ fibrosis.
CD47 is involved in a range of cellular processes, including apoptosis, proliferation, adhesion, and migration (all the functions a growing cancer cell needs!!!)Furthermore, it plays a key role in immune and angiogenic responses. CD47 is ubiquitously expressed in human cells and has been found to be overexpressed in many different tumor cells.  Expression in equine cutaneous tumors has been reported as well."       Thanks, wikipedia!!
CD47 blockade in melanoma first came to my attention in some obscure journal reports and then, thrid trial down, here: Dec 2016Trials for Joshie (and Paulster and others....if needed)....:

Now there's this:  

CTLA4 and CD47 combinational therapy to extend survival in melanoma.
ASCO 2017. J Clin Oncol 35, 2017. Scheartz, Nath, Lessey-Morillon, et al.

Background: Irradiation (IR) combined with chemotherapy is the post-surgical standard of care treatment for melanoma, but metastasis still results in high mortality rates. Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA4) {ipi} have proven effective for immunotherapy of melanoma. CTLA-4 is up-regulated post-T cell activation and blockade enhances tumor responses in immunocompetent rodents and humans. Trials suggest that combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors are more efficacious than single agents, but tumors remain resistant. We are investigating CD47 blockade for the treatment of cancer. CD47 is frequently elevated in cancers and serves as an inhibitory receptor for thrombospondin-1 on immune cells in the tumor stroma. CD47 blockade on CD8 T or tumor cells significantly enhances immune-targeted tumor cell killing post-IR compared to IR alone. Here we explore the potential for antisense CD47 and anti-CTLA4 therapy alone or in combination with IR using a syngeneic mouse melanoma model. Methods: C57BL/6 mice were inoculated with 1x106B16F10 melanoma cells in the hind limb and treated with 10 Gy IR combined with CTLA4 blocking antibody, CD47 translational blocking morpholino, or the combination of CTLA4/CD47 therapies. Granzyme B along with CD4/CD8 T cell infiltration were examined in tumors. Histology was evaluated for CD3 and necrosis. Results: The combination of CD47/CTLA4 with IR significantly increased survival by 25% compared to IR/CTLA4 alone at 50 days. Granzyme B expression was significantly increased in IR mice with CTLA4/CD47 combination, which correlated with infiltration of CD8+ T cells and a concomitant decrease in Gr1+CD11b suppressor cells compared to controls. In non-IR tumors, histology revealed minimal necrosis, while all IR groups showed increased necrosis. Tumor IR in combination with CTLA4 or CD47 increased immune cell infiltration. However, the combination of IR with CTLA4/CD47 showed widespread necrosis. All groups treated with the CD47 exhibited focal hemorrhage, which was more extensive when combined with CTLA4. Conclusions: Results herein suggest IR combined CTLA4/CD47 checkpoint blockade provides a survival benefit by activating a beneficial adaptive immune response

So...poor little mice were given melanoma in their "hind limb", treated with radiation AND ipi or anti-CD47, or both.  The mice treated with both ipi and anti-CD47 PLUS radiation had increased survival (by 25%) compared to those treated with radiation and ipi alone.  Non-irradiated tumors showed little necrosis, but irradiated ones also treated with the combo showed "widespread necrosis"! On the down side: "All groups treated with the CD47 exhibited focal hemorrhage, which was more extensive when combined with CTLA4."  Melanoma tumors already have a predisposition to bleed, so this could be problematic, but hopefully can be dealt with effectively in real live ratties.

Mice so far.  Ratties in process.  Holding out hope. - c  

Friday, April 22, 2016

Hope after standard melanoma immunotherapies fail



Omid Hamid, MD, discusses promising agents and combinations that offer hope to patients with melanoma for whom standard checkpoint agents and/or targeted therapies are not an option.

 http://www.onclive.com/web-exclusives/novel-checkpoints-offer-hope-after-standard-melanoma-immunotherapies-fail  

Determining the next step for a patient with melanoma who has failed or is not a candidate for existing targeted therapies or immunotherapies can be a challenge.  However, there is hope, says Omid Hamid, MD, chief of Translational Research and Immunotherapy, and director of Melanoma Therapeutics at The Angeles Clinic.

“There are times when you throw your hands in the air and say, ‘I’ve run out of options,’” he says. “But, all you need to do is look in another direction, open another cabinet, and realize that there are a ton of new options for our patients. These are nontraditional agents that maybe would not come to mind, but can be very effective in first-line, second-line, or any line.”

Currently, several new checkpoint inhibitors and costimulatory molecules are being explored. These include those that target glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor (GITR)—which is expressed on CD4- and CD8-positive T cells—in addition to T-regulatory cells, NK cells, and dendritic cells.  GITR binds to its ligand on antigen presenting cells (APCs) and endothelial cells to promote T-cell activation. A number of GITR agonists are in clinical trials, including TRX518, developed by the biotech startup GITR Inc.  OX40, also known as CD134, is another option for patients with melanoma, says Hamid.  This targets the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor, which is primarily found on the surface of activated cytotoxic and regulatory T cells. MedImmune is developing 3 different OX40-targeting agonists: MEDI6383, MEDI0562, and MEDI6469.  Combination regimens also offer an additional option for patients, says Hamid. Often, agents that do not have much activity alone in a patient may work well with something else.


In an interview with OncLive, Hamid discusses promising agents and combinations that offer hope to patients with melanoma for whom standard checkpoint agents and/or targeted therapies are not an option. 

OncLive: What new agents are available that are showing great potential?
Hamid: There are newer checkpoint agents such as GITR, OX40, and 4-1BB. These new checkpoint inhibitors are showing response after failure with traditional checkpoints. Adaptive T-cell therapeutics, which used to be considered “boutique drugs,”—meaning they were difficult for physicians to find—are now transitioning into normal centers like ours, thanks to collaborations. Antibody-drug conjugates have a role in melanoma, as well. These are phase II options, and some of them will be in phase III soon. 
What should a community oncologist know about these newer agents?
They need to have an understanding of the approved drugs and combinations, the toxicities of these agents, and how to mitigate those toxicities so patients can get back on therapy and get the proper dose intensity. These agents are going to go through clinical trials and will be in their clinics soon.  Community oncologists need to refer patients to enroll in clinical trials. There are a lot of pressing questions that we can answer through clinical trials. What breeds resistance? What are the biomarkers that predict response? How do we treat toxicities, and where do go from here?  There are newer toxicities out there, and physicians need to keep up with the literature in order to understand these and how to treat them. 
Is there potential for these newer agents to be used in combination with existing ones?
Absolutely. Some of these new drugs will be great companion agents. As a single agent, we may see a low response rate; however, in combination, we may see improved response rates because the agents are synergistic.  In the course of 2 or 3 years, we have gone from single-agent trials, to combination trials, to triplet trials.  The future is going to be adding more tolerable regimens, and discussing whether we should be stopping treatment earlier if we get early responses. All of these are going to move forward on a PD-1 backbone, BRAF backbone, or a CTLA-4/PD-1 combination backbone. There is no doubt that, by this time next year, we are going to be talking about triplet trials.
Are there particular combinations being investigated that you are excited about?
I presented data at the 2015 Society for Melanoma Research Congress on the triplet combination of a BRAF inhibitor, a MEK inhibitor, and an anti–PD-L1 agent that showed significant response, good tolerably, and a good duration of response. That is what is up and coming. It is currently being looked at in 3 major trials.  I hope we can get past the idea that, “we need to select from one agent or another” and find a combination regimen that has a higher efficacy, initially.

Here's a link to some of that data:  Combos looking good...

And a more recent discussion:  Weber and Agarwala discuss combination therapies for melanoma 

Wishing you all my best - c

Determining the next step for a patient with melanoma who has failed or is not a candidate for existing targeted therapies or immunotherapies can be a challenge.

However, there is hope, says Omid Hamid, MD, chief of Translational Research and Immunotherapy, and director of Melanoma Therapeutics at The Angeles Clinic.

“There are times when you throw your hands in the air and say, ‘I’ve run out of options,’” he says. “But, all you need to do is look in another direction, open another cabinet, and realize that there are a ton of new options for our patients. These are nontraditional agents that maybe would not come to mind, but can be very effective in first-line, second-line, or any line.”

Currently, several new checkpoint inhibitors and costimulatory molecules are being explored. These include those that target glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor (GITR)—which is expressed on CD4- and CD8-positive T cells—in addition to T-regulatory cells, NK cells, and dendritic cells.

GITR binds to its ligand on antigen presenting cells (APCs) and endothelial cells to promote T-cell activation. A number of GITR agonists are in clinical trials, including TRX518, developed by the biotech startup GITR Inc.

OX40, also known as CD134, is another option for patients with melanoma, says Hamid.

This targets the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor, which is primarily found on the surface of activated cytotoxic and regulatory T cells. MedImmune is developing 3 different OX40-targeting agonists: MEDI6383, MEDI0562, and MEDI6469.

Combination regimens also offer an additional option for patients, says Hamid. Often, agents that do not have much activity alone in a patient may work well with something else.

In an interview with OncLive, Hamid discusses promising agents and combinations that offer hope to patients with melanoma for whom standard checkpoint agents and/or targeted therapies are not an option.

OncLive: What new agents are available that are showing great potential?

Hamid: There are newer checkpoint agents such as GITR, OX40, and 4-1BB. These new checkpoint inhibitors are showing response after failure with traditional checkpoints. Adaptive T-cell therapeutics, which used to be considered “boutique drugs,”—meaning they were difficult for physicians to find—are now transitioning into normal centers like ours, thanks to collaborations. Antibody-drug conjugates have a role in melanoma, as well. These are phase II options, and some of them will be in phase III soon.

What should a community oncologist know about these newer agents?

They need to have an understanding of the approved drugs and combinations, the toxicities of these agents, and how to mitigate those toxicities so patients can get back on therapy and get the proper dose intensity. These agents are going to go through clinical trials and will be in their clinics soon.

Community oncologists need to refer patients to enroll in clinical trials. There are a lot of pressing questions that we can answer through clinical trials. What breeds resistance? What are the biomarkers that predict response? How do we treat toxicities, and where do go from here?

There are newer toxicities out there, and physicians need to keep up with the literature in order to understand these and how to treat them.

Is there potential for these newer agents to be used in combination with existing ones?

Absolutely. Some of these new drugs will be great companion agents. As a single agent, we may see a low response rate; however, in combination, we may see improved response rates because the agents are synergistic.

In the course of 2 or 3 years, we have gone from single-agent trials, to combination trials, to triplet trials.

The future is going to be adding more tolerable regimens, and discussing whether we should be stopping treatment earlier if we get early responses. All of these are going to move forward on a PD-1 backbone, BRAF backbone, or a CTLA-4/PD-1 combination backbone. There is no doubt that, by this time next year, we are going to be talking about triplet trials.

Are there particular combinations being investigated that you are excited about?

I presented data at the 2015 Society for Melanoma Research Congress on the triplet combination of a BRAF inhibitor, a MEK inhibitor, and an anti–PD-L1 agent that showed significant response, good tolerably, and a good duration of response. That is what is up and coming. It is currently being looked at in 3 major trials.

I hope we can get past the idea that, “we need to select from one agent or another” and find a combination regimen that has a higher efficacy, initially.
- See more at: http://www.onclive.com/web-exclusives/novel-checkpoints-offer-hope-after-standard-melanoma-immunotherapies-fail#sthash.nJwR9a1R.piv8iAUe.dpuf

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

What the Melanoma Big Dogs are working on in 2017!!!


Immunotherapy!  Targeted therapy!  TIL!  CARs!  Intratumoral therapies!  Here we go!!!!

Novel Checkpoints and Cosignaling Molecules in Cancer Immunotherapy.  Giuroiu, Weber. Cancer J. 2017 Jan/Feb.
The recent demonstration of the antitumor efficacy of checkpoint protein inhibition has resulted in the approval of blocking antibodies against the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway in multiple different histologic findings. Therapeutic successes with PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies in melanoma and lung cancer have been followed by approvals in bladder, renal, and head and neck cancers and Hodgkin lymphoma, with others undoubtedly to come. However, PD-1 is only one of many checkpoints and agonistic regulatory molecules expressed on T cells by which maintenance of the balance between costimulatory and coinhibitory signaling pathways is perturbed in cancer. The manipulation of many of these molecules in cancer patients might be associated with clinical benefit. The majority of the T-cell cosignaling receptors belong to either the immunoglobulin superfamily or the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily. A total of 29 immunoglobulin superfamily and 26 tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily cosignaling receptors have been identified that are expressed on T cells, providing fertile ground for development of inhibitory or agonistic antibodies and small molecules as cancer therapeutics. In the current work, we focus on some of the most promising new checkpoints and agonistic or cosignaling molecules that are in early clinical development as single agents or in combinations with PD-1/PD-L1, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 blockade, or chemotherapy with an emphasis on those that have reached the clinic and on important targets that are in late preclinical development.

Novel Targeted Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma.  Iams, Sosman, Chandra.  Cancer J.  2017 Jan/Feb.

Oncogene-targeted therapy is a major component of precision oncology, and although patients with metastatic melanoma have experienced improved outcomes with this strategy, there are a number of potential therapeutic targets currently under study that may further increase the drug armamentarium for this patient population. In this review, we discuss the landscape of targeted therapies for patients with advanced melanoma, focusing on oncogene mutation-specific targets. In patients with typical BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, combination BRAF and MEK inhibition has surpassed outcomes compared with monotherapy with BRAF or MEK inhibition alone, and current strategies seek to address inevitable resistance mechanisms. For patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma, MEK inhibitor monotherapy and combined MEK and CDK4/6 inhibition are burgeoning strategies; for patients with KIT-mutant melanoma, tyrosine kinase inhibition is being leveraged, and for NF-1-mutant melanoma, mTOR and MEK inhibition is being actively evaluated. In patients with atypical, non-V600 BRAF-mutant melanoma, MEK inhibitor monotherapy is the potential novel targeted approach on the horizon. For advanced uveal melanoma, novel targets such as IMCgp100 and glembatumumab have shown activity in early studies. We review additional strategies that remain in the preclinical and early clinical pipeline, so there is much hope for the future of targeted agents for distinct molecular cohorts of patients with advanced melanoma.

Adoptive Cell Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma.  Merhavi-Shoham, Itzhaki, Markel, et al. Cancer J. 2017 Jan/Feb.  

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is a powerful form of immunotherapy by inducing durable complete responses that significantly extend the survival of melanoma patients. Mutation-derived neoantigens were recently identified as key factors for tumor recognition and rejection by TILs. The isolation of T-cell receptor (TCR) genes directed against neoantigens and their retransduction into peripheral T cells may provide a new form of ACT.  Genetic modifications of T cells with chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) have demonstrated remarkable clinical results in hematologic malignancies, but are so far less effective in solid tumors. Only very limited reports exist in melanoma. Progress in CAR T-cell engineering, including neutralization of inhibitory signals or additional safety switches, may open opportunities also in melanoma.We review clinical results and latest developments of adoptive therapies with TILs, T-cell receptor, and CAR-modified T cells and discuss future directions for the treatment of melanoma.

Intratumoral Approaches for the Treatment of Melanoma.  Bommareddy, Silk, Kaufman.  Cancer J. 2017 Jan/Feb.

There have been significant advances in the immunotherapy of melanoma over the last decade. The tumor microenvironment is now known to promote an immune-suppressive milieu that can block effective immune-mediated tumor rejection. Several novel strategies designed to overcome local immunosuppression hold promise for treatment of melanoma and other cancers. These approaches include oncolytic viruses, plasmid DNA delivery, Toll-like receptor agonists, inflammatory dyes, cytokines, checkpoint inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and host and pathogenic cell-based vectors. In addition, there are several novel methods for local drug delivery, including direct injection, image-guided, electroporation, and nanodelivery techniques under study. The approval of talimogene laherparepvec (Imlygic), an attenuated, recombinant oncolytic herpesvirus, for melanoma treatment is the first intratumoral agent to receive regulatory approval for the treatment of patients with melanoma. This review will focus on the rationale for intratumoral treatment in melanoma, describe the clinical and safety data for some of the agents in clinical development, and provide a perspective for future clinical investigation with intratumoral approaches. Melanoma has been a paradigm tumor for progress in targeted therapy and immunotherapy and will likely also be the tumor to establish the therapeutic role of intratumoral treatment for cancer.


Sounds good!  I like a multi-faceted approach.  Now!  Let's make it so!  Double time!!!! - c

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Immune reactions with anti-PD1 can be SERIOUS!!!!



Autoimmune inner ear disease in a melanoma patient treated with pembrolizumab.  Zibelman, Pollak, Olszanski, et al.  J Immunother Cancer. 2016 Feb 16.

Immune related adverse events affecting various organ systems are a recognized potential consequence of immune checkpoint inhibition. However, autoimmune inner ear disease is one complication not previously associated with the use of checkpoint inhibitors, though it has been reported after adoptive cell immunotherapy.  Here we present what we believe is the first case of autoimmune inner ear disease resulting from treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in a patient with metastatic melanoma. An 82 year old male presented with widespread metastatic mucosal melanoma and was initially treated with the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab but had progression of disease after four doses. He was subsequently treated with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab and after two doses the patient noted bilateral hearing loss. Otology evaluation was significant for the development of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and the patient was started on treatment with bilateral intratympanic dexamethasone injections. He experienced significant recovery of his hearing deficit with the intratympanic injections and restaging imaging after 12 weeks of pembrolizumab demonstrated a dramatic reduction in tumor burden.  Autoimmune inner ear disease has been previously associated with the therapeutic transfer of genetically engineered lymphocytes as an on-target effect of donor T-cells recognizing antigens on cells in the inner ear. It is important for physicians to have a high clinical index of suspicion for the appropriate recognition and management of any potential autoimmune toxicity with checkpoint inhibitors given the variability of presentation and unique aspects of toxicity.

Severe Hyponatremia and Immune Nephritis Following an Initial Infusion of Nivolumab.  Vandiver, Singer, Harshberger.  Target Oncol. 2016 Mar 4. 

Anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer. These agents are known to induce many immune-related adverse events, but rapid-onset nephritis and immune-related hyponatremia have not been described to date. We describe the case of an adult patient who developed severe hyponatremia and rapid-onset nephritis following the first infusion of nivolumab for metastatic melanoma.

Pembrolizumab-induced necrotic myositis in a patient with metastatic melanoma.  Vallet, Gaillet, Weiss, et al.  Ann Oncol. 2016 Mar 2.

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis-like Reaction With Severe Satellite Cell Necrosis Associated With Nivolumab in a Patient With Ipilimumab Refractory Metastatic Melanoma.  Nayar, Briscoe, Fernandez Penas.  J Immunother. 2016 Mar 1.

Nivolumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody to PD-1, which has shown improved overall and progression-free survival.  Across studies of nivo, grade 3 or 4 rash has been noted in more than 1% of patients.  We present a case report of a pt with metastatic melanoma...who developed toxic epidermal necrolysis.   A 64 year old female presented with widespread maculopapular skin rash with bullae and areas of skin detachment after receiving 2 doses of nivo for ipi refractory metastatic melanoma (BRAF wild type).  She was initially treated with prednisone, which was soon changed to methylprednisone followed by immunoglubulin with minimal response to the rash. After discussion with Dermatology, she was given cyclosporine and high-dose prednisone with gradual but significant improvement in her rash. Her skin biopsy showed interface dermatitis with a lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermoepidermal junction and apoptotic keratinocytes with focal areas of complete necrosis of the epidermis with minimal infiltrate.

Be sure to talk to your doctor if you think any of these are other side effects may be happening to you!!!! - c