Kathleen M Mahoney1, Gordon J Freeman2, David F McDermott3. 1. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: kmmah5@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Blocking the interaction between the programmed cell death (PD)-1 protein and one of its ligands, PD-L1, has been reported to have impressive antitumor responses. Therapeutics targeting this pathway are currently in clinical trials. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab are the first of this anti-PD-1 pathway family of checkpoint inhibitors to gain accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Nivolumab has been associated with improved overall survival compared with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated wild-type serine/threonine-protein kinase B-raf proto-oncogene BRAF melanoma. Although the most mature data are in the treatment of melanoma, the FDA has granted approval of nivolumab for squamous cell lung cancer and the breakthrough therapy designation to immune- checkpoint inhibitors for use in other cancers: nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, for Hodgkin lymphoma, and MPDL-3280A, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, for bladder cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Here we review the literature on PD-1 and PD-L1 blockade and focus on the reported clinical studies that have included patients with melanoma. METHODS: PubMed was searched to identify relevant clinical studies of PD-1/PD-L1-targeted therapies in melanoma. A review of data from the current trials on clinicaltrial.gov was incorporated, as well as data presented in abstracts at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, given the limited number of published clinical trials on this topic. FINDINGS: The anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents have been reported to have impressive antitumor effects in several malignancies, including melanoma. The greatest clinical activity in unselected patients has been seen in melanoma. Tumor expression of PD-L1 is a suggestive, but inadequate, biomarker predictive of response to immune-checkpoint blockade. However, tumors expressing little or no PD-L1 are less likely to respond to PD-1 pathway blockade. Combination checkpoint blockade with PD-1 plus cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)-4 blockade appears to improve response rates in patients who are less likely to respond to single-checkpoint blockade. Toxicity with PD-1 blocking agents is less than the toxicity with previous immunotherapies (eg, interleukin 2, CTLA-4 blockade). Certain adverse events can be severe and potentially life threatening, but most can be prevented or reversed with close monitoring and appropriate management. IMPLICATIONS: This family of immune-checkpoint inhibitors benefits not only patients with metastatic melanoma but also those with historically less responsive tumor types. Although a subset of patients responds to single-agent blockade, the initial trial of checkpoint-inhibitor combinations has reported a potential to improve response rates. Combination therapies appear to be a means of increasing response rates, albeit with increased immune-related adverse events. As these treatments become available to patients, education regarding the recognition and management of immune-related effects of immune-checkpoint blockade will be essential for maximizing clinical benefit.
PURPOSE: Blocking the interaction between the programmed cell death (PD)-1 protein and one of its ligands, PD-L1, has been reported to have impressive antitumor responses. Therapeutics targeting this pathway are currently in clinical trials. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab are the first of this anti-PD-1 pathway family of checkpoint inhibitors to gain accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Nivolumab has been associated with improved overall survival compared with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated wild-type serine/threonine-protein kinase B-raf proto-oncogene BRAF melanoma. Although the most mature data are in the treatment of melanoma, the FDA has granted approval of nivolumab for squamous cell lung cancer and the breakthrough therapy designation to immune- checkpoint inhibitors for use in other cancers: nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, for Hodgkin lymphoma, and MPDL-3280A, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, for bladder cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Here we review the literature on PD-1 and PD-L1 blockade and focus on the reported clinical studies that have included patients with melanoma. METHODS: PubMed was searched to identify relevant clinical studies of PD-1/PD-L1-targeted therapies in melanoma. A review of data from the current trials on clinicaltrial.gov was incorporated, as well as data presented in abstracts at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, given the limited number of published clinical trials on this topic. FINDINGS: The anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents have been reported to have impressive antitumor effects in several malignancies, including melanoma. The greatest clinical activity in unselected patients has been seen in melanoma. Tumor expression of PD-L1 is a suggestive, but inadequate, biomarker predictive of response to immune-checkpoint blockade. However, tumors expressing little or no PD-L1 are less likely to respond to PD-1 pathway blockade. Combination checkpoint blockade with PD-1 plus cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)-4 blockade appears to improve response rates in patients who are less likely to respond to single-checkpoint blockade. Toxicity with PD-1 blocking agents is less than the toxicity with previous immunotherapies (eg, interleukin 2, CTLA-4 blockade). Certain adverse events can be severe and potentially life threatening, but most can be prevented or reversed with close monitoring and appropriate management. IMPLICATIONS: This family of immune-checkpoint inhibitors benefits not only patients with metastatic melanoma but also those with historically less responsive tumor types. Although a subset of patients responds to single-agent blockade, the initial trial of checkpoint-inhibitor combinations has reported a potential to improve response rates. Combination therapies appear to be a means of increasing response rates, albeit with increased immune-related adverse events. As these treatments become available to patients, education regarding the recognition and management of immune-related effects of immune-checkpoint blockade will be essential for maximizing clinical benefit.
Authors: Michael R Green; Stefano Monti; Scott J Rodig; Przemyslaw Juszczynski; Treeve Currie; Evan O'Donnell; Bjoern Chapuy; Kunihiko Takeyama; Donna Neuberg; Todd R Golub; Jeffery L Kutok; Margaret A Shipp Journal: Blood Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Jean-Charles Soria; Marcin Kowanetz; Gregg D Fine; Omid Hamid; Michael S Gordon; Jeffery A Sosman; David F McDermott; John D Powderly; Scott N Gettinger; Holbrook E K Kohrt; Leora Horn; Donald P Lawrence; Sandra Rost; Maya Leabman; Yuanyuan Xiao; Ahmad Mokatrin; Hartmut Koeppen; Priti S Hegde; Ira Mellman; Daniel S Chen; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jules Gadiot; Anna I Hooijkaas; Andrew D M Kaiser; Harm van Tinteren; Hester van Boven; Christian Blank Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mark J Selby; John J Engelhardt; Michael Quigley; Karla A Henning; Timothy Chen; Mohan Srinivasan; Alan J Korman Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2013-04-07 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: S A Rosenberg; J C Yang; S L Topalian; D J Schwartzentruber; J S Weber; D R Parkinson; C A Seipp; J H Einhorn; D E White Journal: JAMA Date: 1994 Mar 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Harriet Kluger; Margaret K Callahan; Michael A Postow; Naiyer A Rizvi; Alexander M Lesokhin; Neil H Segal; Charlotte E Ariyan; Ruth-Ann Gordon; Kathleen Reed; Matthew M Burke; Anne Caldwell; Stephanie A Kronenberg; Blessing U Agunwamba; Xiaoling Zhang; Israel Lowy; Hector David Inzunza; William Feely; Christine E Horak; Quan Hong; Alan J Korman; Jon M Wigginton; Ashok Gupta; Mario Sznol Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-06-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Judith Lacey; Anna J Lomax; Catriona McNeil; Michael Marthick; David Levy; Steven Kao; Theresa Nielsen; Haryana M Dhillon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Cesare Gridelli; Andrea Ardizzoni; Massimo Barberis; Federico Cappuzzo; Francesca Casaluce; Romano Danesi; Giancarlo Troncone; Filippo De Marinis Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-06
Authors: Mark R Albertini; Richard K Yang; Erik A Ranheim; Jacquelyn A Hank; Cindy L Zuleger; Sharon Weber; Heather Neuman; Greg Hartig; Tracey Weigel; David Mahvi; Mary Beth Henry; Renae Quale; Thomas McFarland; Jacek Gan; Lakeesha Carmichael; KyungMann Kim; Hans Loibner; Stephen D Gillies; Paul M Sondel Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 6.968