Melbourne Medical School Collected Works - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18
-
ItemFirst-In-Human Phase I Study of the OX40 Agonist MOXR0916 in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors(AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH, 2022-08-15)PURPOSE: OX40, a receptor transiently expressed by T cells upon antigen recognition, is associated with costimulation of effector T cells and impairment of regulatory T-cell function. This first-in-human study evaluated MOXR0916, a humanized effector-competent agonist IgG1 monoclonal anti-OX40 antibody. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic refractory solid tumors were treated with MOXR0916 intravenously once every 3 weeks (Q3W). A 3+3 dose-escalation stage (0.2-1,200 mg; n = 34) was followed by expansion cohorts at 300 mg (n = 138) for patients with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer. RESULTS: MOXR0916 was well tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities observed. An MTD was not reached. Most patients (95%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE); 56% of AEs, mostly grade 1-2, were related to MOXR0916. Most common treatment-related AEs included fatigue (17%), diarrhea (8%), myalgia (7%), nausea (6%), decreased appetite (6%), and infusion-related reaction (5%). Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were dose proportional between 80 and 1,200 mg and supported Q3W administration. The recommended expansion dose based on PK and OX40 receptor saturation was 300 mg Q3W. Immune activation and upregulation of PD-L1 was observed in a subset of paired tumor biopsies. One renal cell carcinoma patient experienced a confirmed partial response. Overall, 33% of patients achieved stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although objective responses were rarely observed with MOXR0916 monotherapy, the favorable safety profile and evidence of tumor immune activation in a subset of patients support further investigation in combination with complementary agents such as PD-1/PD-L1 antagonists.
-
ItemEfficacy of anti-PD-1 and ipilimumab alone or in combination in acral melanoma(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2022-07)BACKGROUND: Acral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites. CONCLUSION: While the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab was significantly higher than anti-PD-1 and PFS numerically higher, in this retrospective cohort this benefit did not translate to improved OS. Future trials should specifically include patients with acral melanoma, to help determine the optimal management of this important melanoma subtype.
-
ItemBiomarkers of treatment benefit with atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma(ELSEVIER, 2022-05)BACKGROUND: The phase III IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma. We report exploratory biomarker analyses to optimize targeting of patients who are more likely to benefit from triplet combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred fourteen patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 256) or control (n = 258). Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by key biomarkers, including programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) gene signature. Exploratory recursive partitioning analysis was then used to model associations between PFS and baseline covariates, including key biomarkers. RESULTS: PFS benefit for atezolizumab versus control was greater in patients with high TMB [≥10 mutations/Mb; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.02; P = 0.067] versus low TMB (<10 mutations/Mb; HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.30; P = 0.64) and similar between patients with strong IFN-γ (≥median; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06) versus weak IFN-γ (
-
ItemTriplet Therapy in Melanoma - Combined BRAF/MEK Inhibitors and Anti-PD-(L)1 Antibodies(SPRINGER, 2022-08)PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We provide an updated review of clinical trials evaluating the combination of BRAF/MEK inhibitors with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (triplet therapy) for patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma, accompanied by a summary of the biological evidence supporting this combination. RECENT FINDINGS: Resistance to BRAF/MEK inhibition and comparatively low response rates to immune checkpoint inhibitors remain clinical challenges in the treatment of melanoma. Preclinical data demonstrates that targeted therapy is immune-modulatory and synergises with immune checkpoint inhibition. Several randomised controlled trials have evaluated the combination of targeted therapy with immune checkpoint inhibition. Triplet therapy has shown improvements in progression-free survival and durability of response compared to BRAF/MEK inhibition alone; however, questions remain regarding the best clinical scenario for implementation of this regimen in the era of front-line immunotherapy.
-
Item5-Year Outcomes with Cobimetinib plus Vemurafenib in BRAFV600 Mutation-Positive Advanced Melanoma: Extended Follow-up of the coBRIM Study(AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH, 2021-10-01)PURPOSE: The randomized phase III coBRIM study (NCT01689519) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. We report long-term follow-up of coBRIM, with at least 5 years since the last patient was randomized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily on days 1-21 in each 28-day cycle) or placebo in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). RESULTS: 495 patients were randomized to cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (n = 247) or placebo plus vemurafenib (n = 248). Median follow-up was 21.2 months for cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 16.6 months for placebo plus vemurafenib. Median OS was 22.5 months (95% CI, 20.3-28.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 17.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-19.8) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year OS rates were 31% and 26%, respectively. Median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.5) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year PFS rates were 14% and 10%, respectively. OS and PFS were longest in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase levels and low tumor burden, and in those achieving complete response. The safety profile remained consistent with previously published reports. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up of coBRIM confirms the long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of cobimetinib plus vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma.
-
ItemLong-Term Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Versus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma(LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2022-01-10)PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.
-
ItemMetabolic Plasticity in Melanoma Progression and Response to Oncogene Targeted Therapies(MDPI, 2021-11)Resistance to therapy continues to be a barrier to curative treatments in melanoma. Recent insights from the clinic and experimental settings have highlighted a range of non-genetic adaptive mechanisms that contribute to therapy resistance and disease relapse, including transcriptional, post-transcriptional and metabolic reprogramming. A growing body of evidence highlights the inherent plasticity of melanoma metabolism, evidenced by reversible metabolome alterations and flexibility in fuel usage that occur during metastasis and response to anti-cancer therapies. Here, we discuss how the inherent metabolic plasticity of melanoma cells facilitates both disease progression and acquisition of anti-cancer therapy resistance. In particular, we discuss in detail the different metabolic changes that occur during the three major phases of the targeted therapy response-the early response, drug tolerance and acquired resistance. We also discuss how non-genetic programs, including transcription and translation, control this process. The prevalence and diverse array of these non-genetic resistance mechanisms poses a new challenge to the field that requires innovative strategies to monitor and counteract these adaptive processes in the quest to prevent therapy resistance.
-
ItemEnhancing Adoptive Cell Transfer with Combination BRAF-MEK and CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma(MDPI, 2021-12)Despite the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors that target cytotoxic lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed-cell-death-1 (PD-1) in the treatment of metastatic melanoma, there is still great need to develop robust options for patients who are refractory to first line immunotherapy. As such there has been a resurgence in interest of adoptive cell transfer (ACT) particularly derived from tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. Moreover, the addition of cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have been shown to greatly extend duration of response in combination with BRAF-MEK inhibitors (BRAF-MEKi) in pre-clinical models of melanoma. We therefore investigated whether combinations of BRAF-MEK-CDK4/6i and ACT were efficacious in murine models of melanoma. Triplet targeted therapy of BRAF-MEK-CDK4/6i with OT-1 ACT led to sustained and robust anti-tumor responses in BRAFi sensitive YOVAL1.1. We also show that BRAF-MEKi but not CDK4/6i enhanced MHC Class I expression in melanoma cell lines in vitro. Paradoxically CDK4/6i in low concentrations of IFN-γ reduced expression of MHC Class I and PD-L1 in YOVAL1.1. Overall, this work provides additional pre-clinical evidence to pursue combination of BRAF-MEK-CDK4/6i and to combine this combination with ACT in the clinic.
-
ItemReal-life data for first-line combination immune- checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy in patients with melanoma brain metastases(ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2021-10)BACKGROUND: Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic treatments that have improved outcomes in advanced melanoma have been shown to have an intracranial (IC) effect. We studied the efficacy and outcomes of combined immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab/nivolumab (Combi-ICI) or targeted therapy (Combi-TT) as first-line treatment in MBM. METHODS: MBM patients treated with Combi-ICI or Combi-TT within 3 months after MBM diagnosis. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 53 patients received Combi-ICI, 32% had symptomatic MBM and 33.9% elevated LDH. 71.7% required local treatment. The disease control rate was 60.3%. IC response rate (RR) was 43.8% at 3-months with durable responses at 6- (46.5%) and 12-months (53.1%). Extracranial (EC) RR was 44.7% at 3-months and 50% at 12-months. Median PFS was 9.6 months (95% CI 3.6-NR) and median overall survival (mOS) 44.8 months (95% CI; 26.2-NR). 63 patients received Combi-TT, 55.6% of patients had symptomatic MBM, 57.2% of patients had elevated LDH and 68.3% of patients required local treatment. The disease control rate was 60.4%. ICRR was 50% at 3-months, but dropped at 6-months (20.9%). ECRR was 69.2% at 3-months and 17.6% at 12-months. Median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI 4.2-7.6) and mOS 14.2 months (95% CI 8.99-26.8). In BRAFV600 patients, 26.7% of patients received Combi-ICI and 73.3% Combi-TT with OS (p = 0.0053) and mPFS (p = 0.03) in favour to Combi-ICI. CONCLUSION: Combi-ICI showed prolonged mOS with sustainable IC and EC responses. Despite the initially increased efficacy, Combi-TT responses at 12 months were low. Combi-ICI appeared superior to Combi-TT for OS and PFS in BRAFV600 patients. Other clinical factors are determinants for first-line treatment choice.
-
ItemNo Preview Available