Literature DB >> 26541511

Open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase II DeCOG-study of ipilimumab in pretreated patients with different subtypes of metastatic melanoma.

Lisa Zimmer1, Thomas K Eigentler2, Felix Kiecker3, Jan Simon4, Jochen Utikal5,6, Peter Mohr7, Carola Berking8, Eckhart Kämpgen9, Edgar Dippel10, Rudolf Stadler11, Axel Hauschild12, Michael Fluck13, Patrick Terheyden14, Rainer Rompel15, Carmen Loquai16, Zeinab Assi17, Claus Garbe18, Dirk Schadendorf19.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is an approved immunotherapy that has shown an overall survival benefit in patients with cutaneous metastatic melanoma in two phase III trials. As results of registrational trials might not answer all questions regarding safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma seen in daily clinical practice, the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in patients with different subtypes of metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a multicenter phase II study in melanoma patients irrespective of location of the primary melanoma. Here we present data on patients with pretreated metastatic cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma who received up to four cycles of ipilimumab administered at a dose of 3 mg/kg in 3 week intervals. Tumor assessments were conducted at baseline, weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48 according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. Adverse events (AEs), including immune-related AEs were graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) v.4.0. Primary endpoint was the OS rate at 12 months.
RESULTS: 103 pretreated patients received at least one dose of ipilimumab, including 83 cutaneous, seven mucosal and 13 occult melanomas. 1-year OS rates for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 38 %, 14 % and 27 %, respectively. Median OS was 6.8 months (95 % CI 5.3-9.9) for cutaneous, 9.6 months (95 % CI 1.6-11.1) for mucosal, and 9.9 months (lower 95 % CI 2.3, upper 95 % CI non-existent) for occult melanoma. Overall response rates for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 16 %, 17 % and 11 %, respectively. Eleven patients had partial response (16 %) and ten patients experienced stable disease (14 %), none achieved a complete response. Treatment-related AEs were observed in 71 patients (69 %), including 20 grade 3-4 events (19 %). No new and unexpected safety findings were noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab is a treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma seen in daily routine. Toxicity was manageable when treated as per protocol-specific guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01355120.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26541511      PMCID: PMC4635983          DOI: 10.1186/s12967-015-0716-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Transl Med        ISSN: 1479-5876            Impact factor:   5.531


Background

From a clinical like from a scientific perspective, the recent advances in cancer immunotherapy have been acknowledged as a major breakthrough [1]. Especially for melanoma patients, immune checkpoint inhibitors begin to witness an enormous therapeutic potential, resulting very recently in the approval of the first-in-class anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma [2-5]. The cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab has been authorized for use in advanced, metastatic melanoma in the United States and in the European Union—as in many other countries worldwide since—on basis of two pivotal phase III studies [6, 7]. CTLA-4, a native regulator of T cell activation, downregulates T-cell function through a variety of mechanisms, and finally induces T-cell cycle arrest [8]. Because many of the immune checkpoints are regulated by ligand-receptor interactions, CTLA-4 can be easily blocked by monoclonal antibodies or recombinant ligand-like proteins that block CTLA-4 as a negative regulator of immunity, hence enhancing natural antitumor immunity [9]. Serving as the first mechanistically defined immune checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab has been intensely investigated in clinical registrational trial settings [6, 7] in patients with cutaneous melanoma, the most frequent melanoma subgroup with morphological and molecular distinctions from other clinical disease subgroups [10]. However, results of registrational trials might not answer all questions regarding safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patient cohorts seen in daily routine. Here we report the results of the open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase II DeCOG trial to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of 3 mg/kg ipilimumab in pretreated patients with cutaneous, mucosal and occult metastatic melanoma seen in daily routine in interdisciplinary skin cancer units in Germany. Data for patients with ocular melanoma are reported elsewhere [11].

Patients and methods

Patients

Eligibility criteria included documented unresectable stage III or stage IV metastatic cutaneous, occult, mucosal and ocular melanoma according to American Joint Committee on Cancer cutaneous melanoma staging criteria [12]. Patients who had received at least one prior systemic therapy were eligible. Previous systemic treatment had to be completed ≥28 days before receiving ipilimumab. Additional requirements included age ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2, life expectancy of ≥6 months (estimation of life expectancy was at the discretion of the participating investigators), measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 [13], adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function. Patients with a history of active autoimmune disease and chronic use of systemic corticosteroids were excluded. Patients with asymptomatic, radiographically stable previously treated or untreated brain metastases were eligible.

Study design

This multicenter, open-label, phase II study (DeCOG-MM-PAL11-Trial; CA184-137) was conducted in two parts. Part 1 of the study was open for recruitment from May 2011 to August 2011; in an Additional file 1: Figure S1 the patient flow is described. This part allowed recruitment of pretreated melanoma patients irrespective of location of the primary melanoma. Part 2, which was only eligible for patients with pretreated or treatment-naïve metastatic ocular melanoma to allow for a valid analysis of this subgroup, was closed on September 30, 2012. Data from part 1 and 2 for patients with ocular melanoma are reported elsewhere [11]. Twenty-five Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG) skin cancer units in Germany participated. The study was approved by institutional ethics committee University Duisburg-Essen (approval number 10–4531) and the German competent authority Paul-Ehrlich-Institute (Langen, Germany, approval number 1233), and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki/Good Clinical Practice. All patients gave written informed consent. The protocol for this trial is available as Additional file 2. Ipilimumab was administered intravenously over 90 min at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for a total of four infusions. Patients with progressive disease (PD) at ≥3 months from week 12 assessment following stable disease (SD), an initial partial (PR) or complete response (CR) were eligible for re-induction with ipilimumab following at the same dosage. Dose reduction was not allowed, but skipping of one dose of ipilimumab was recommended when adverse events (AE) occurred. Rapid disease progression, intolerable toxicity or patient withdrawal led to treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) rate at 12 months.

Assessments

Regular assessments, including a physical examination and standardized blood testing, were carried out at baseline and every 3 weeks during induction and re-induction phases. Tumor assessments were conducted at baseline, weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48 using the RECIST version 1.1 [13]. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC version 4.0). All AEs were recorded from the time of the first ipilimumab administration until 70 days after treatment discontinuation. AEs were defined as an immune-related AE (irAE) if they were associated with drug exposure, consistent with an immune phenomenon and if other causes were ruled out. IrAE management was based on protocol-specific treatment algorithms. All AEs that were definitely, probably or possibly related to study drug were defined as related AEs.

Statistical methods

This report includes results based on the data cutoff of December 6, 2013. Patient and disease characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Categorical values were expressed as counts and percentage whereas continuous values were expressed as median and range values. OS was defined as the time from the first administration of ipilimumab to death from any cause. Patients last known to be alive were censored at the date of last contact. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from the first dose of ipilimumab to the first date of documented progression as per RECIST, or date of death, whichever came first. Patients last known to be alive and progression-free were censored at the date of last contact. PFS rate at 6 months was defined as the proportion of patients being alive and without progress 6 months after the first ipilimumab administration. Patients with unknown survival status or unknown status of progression at 6 months were censored. The 1- and 2-year survival rates were defined as the proportion of patients being alive 12 or 24 months after their first ipilimumab administration. Patients with unknown survival status at 12 or 24 months were censored. OS, PFS, PFS rate at 6 months, 1- and 2-year survival rates were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. For medians of OS and PFS, 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The log-rank test was used to compare the 1-year and 2-year OS rates in patients with cutaneous melanoma between several subgroups, i.e. the BRAF mutational status, the presence of brain metastases, the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level prior to receiving ipilimumab [<2-fold upper level norm (ULN) vs. ≥2× ULN], the number of ipilimumab doses (<4 vs. 4), and the absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) (<1000/µl vs. ≥1000/µl) before the first (week 1), the second (week 4) and the third dose (week 7) of ipilimumab. Due to small sample sizes comparisons of 1-year and 2-year OS rates in patients with mucosal and occult melanoma were not done. Two sided p values were evaluated and a p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All variables with significant differences between their stratifications regarding the overall survival were included in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. To determine potential predictors, all independent covariates (LDH, number of ipilimumab doses, ALC week 4, brain metastases), were entered into a backward Cox regression model for the overall survival. The stay level was p = 0.05. All covariates being still significant were considered as potential predictors. For the hazard ratio, 95 % CIs were calculated using the Wald method. The overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of patients with PR and CR whereas the disease control rate (DCR) was defined as the proportion of patients with CR, PR and SD. Lost to follow-up was documented if the patient did not respond to phone calls (3 times) and to a written invitation. Analyses were carried out using SAS software, version 9.3 (Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Between May to August 2011, 103 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of ipilimumab, including 83 patients with cutaneous melanoma, 13 with occult melanoma and seven with mucosal melanoma (Table 1). Baseline patient characteristics are reported in Table 1. All 103 patients had received previous systemic anti-cancer treatment, including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents (Table 1). The most common chemotherapies were dacarbazine and carboplatin/paclitaxel given in 73 (71 %) and 30 (29 %) of all patients. None had previously received ipilimumab but 18 patients had undergone previous immunotherapy treatment with interferon α or vaccination. 31 patients presented with brain metastases at study entry, with similar proportions observed across the different melanoma subtypes (Table 1). Sixty-four patients (62 %) completed the induction phase, including 52 patients with cutaneous, four with mucosal and eight with occult melanoma. Three patients with cutaneous melanoma experienced PR at week 12 and were re-induced after 91, 232 and 217 days, respectively (Table 2). The median number of doses received in the induction phase was four (range 1–4). Among the 39 patients (38 %) who did not complete the induction phase, 11 (11 %) died, 16 (16 %) developed PD, eight (8 %) had intolerable AEs and four (4 %) withdrew their informed consent.
Table 1

Baseline patient characteristics (n = 103 patients totally)

Patient characteristicsCutaneous melanomaMucosal melanomaMelanoma of unknown primary
N%N%N%
No. patients, % 83100710013100
Age, years
Median (range)63(29–85)63(33–37)62(40–77)
Sex
Male53642291129
Female3036571271
ECOG baseline
051612291292
1232857118
2911
BRAF mutation
Not mutated2935343539
Mutated1721646
Not known3745457215
Disease stage (all: Stage IV)
M1a67323
M1b151822918
M1c6275571969
LDH
<2 ULN67815711185
≥2 ULN1619229215
Brain metastases
No57695711077
Yes2631229323
Prior systemic therapy in stage IV (except radiotherapy)
No
Yes83100710013100
Number of prior systemic therapies
14251686862
22733323
≥31316114215
Not applicable11
Immunotherapy
No678171001185
Yes1619215
If yes, type of previous immunotherapy
Interferon alpha1113215
Vaccination56
Kinase inhibitors
No71867100969
Yes1214431
If yes, type of previous kinase inhibitor
BRAF inhibitor78215.5
MEK inhibitor45215.5
Chemotherapy
0911215
14757686862
22024215
≥37811418

ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, LDH lactate dehydrogenase

Table 2

Outcomes of patients with ipilimumab re-induction therapy

Age, yearsBest response at week 12 (RECIST)Duration between 1st restaging (week 12) and re-induction therapy (days)Response at 1st restaging after re-induction (RECIST)Best overall response after re-induction (RECIST)Time from 1st dose to death/follow-up (months)Alive
74PR91SDSD17.1Yes
56PR232PRCR25.5Yes
73PR217PDSD24.8Yes

RECIST response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease

Baseline patient characteristics (n = 103 patients totally) ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, LDH lactate dehydrogenase Outcomes of patients with ipilimumab re-induction therapy RECIST response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease

Efficacy

The 1-year rate for OS was 38 % (95 % CI 27–49) for cutaneous melanoma, 14 % (95 % CI 1–47) for mucosal melanoma, and 27 % (95 % CI 5–57) for occult melanoma. 2-year OS rates for cutaneous and occult melanoma were 22 % (95 % CI 13–33) and 27 % (95 % CI 5–57), respectively. All of the patients with mucosal melanoma died before month 24 after the first ipilimumab administration. Six-month rate for PFS were 16 % (95 % CI 9–25) for cutaneous melanoma, 14 % (95 % CI 1–47) for mucosal melanoma, and 17 % (95 % CI 3–41) for occult melanoma. Median OS from the first dose of ipilimumab for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 6.8 (95 % CI 5.3–9.9; Fig. 1a), 9.6 (95 % CI 1.6–11.1; Fig. 1b) and 9.9 (lower 95 % CI 2.3, upper 95 % CI non-existent; Fig. 1c) months, respectively. Seventy of 103 patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment (Table 3). Among the 33 patients (32 %) who were not assessable, 22 died before the assessment of change in tumor burden (including 13 with brain metastases), three developed PD (including two with brain metastases), three had intolerable AEs, one had no measurable disease at baseline, three withdrew their informed consent (including one with brain metastases) and one was lost to follow-up. The DCR was 29 % for cutaneous, 50 % for mucosal and 22 % for occult melanoma (Table 3). Overall response rates for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 16 %, 17 % and 11 %, respectively (Table 3). Among the 70 patients evaluable for response, the overall response rate for 15 patients with brain metastases was 13 %: a response rate similar to the one found for the remaining 55 patients without brain metastases (16 %). Of the 15 patients with brain metastases seven patients had intracranial SD, seven intracranial PD and one patient experienced intracranial CR. In total, ten patients showed similar response pattern in intracranial and extracranial metastases and five patients had different response pattern, e.g. in one patient an intracranial response (CR) was observed, unfortunately associated with extracranial PD (Additional file 3: Table S3).
Fig. 1

Kaplan–Meier curves for 1-year overall survival (OS) rates of different melanoma subtypes. Pretreated patients with a metastatic cutaneous melanoma (1-year OS rate: 38 %), b mucosal melanoma (1-year OS rate: 14 %), and c occult melanoma (1-year OS rate: 27 %). All patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg

Table 3

Overall response rates (ORR) and disease control rates (DCR) (n = 70 patients totally)

Patients with measurable disease (and at least one tumor assessment)Cutaneous melanomaMucosal melanomaMelanoma of unknown primary
N%N%N%
No. patients  (%) 5510061009100
Response pattern (acc. to RECIST)
Complete response
Partial response916117111
Stable disease713233111
Progressive disease3971350778
Best ORR (according to RECIST)
ORR (=CR + PR)916117111
ORR at week 12713117
ORR at week 24611117
Best DCR (according to RECIST)
DCR (=CR + PR + SD)1629350222
DCR at week 121527350222
DCR at week 241018117111

CR complete response, PR partial response, RECIST response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, SD stable disease

Kaplan–Meier curves for 1-year overall survival (OS) rates of different melanoma subtypes. Pretreated patients with a metastatic cutaneous melanoma (1-year OS rate: 38 %), b mucosal melanoma (1-year OS rate: 14 %), and c occult melanoma (1-year OS rate: 27 %). All patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Overall response rates (ORR) and disease control rates (DCR) (n = 70 patients totally) CR complete response, PR partial response, RECIST response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, SD stable disease The 1-year OS rate was higher in patients with cutaneous melanoma who had no brain metastases (51 % vs. 12 %, p < 0.0001, Fig. 2a), in patients with a LDH level <2× ULN (42 % vs. 19 %, p = 0.0007), in patients who received four ipilimumab doses (53 % vs. 14 %, p < 0.0001; Fig. 2b), and in patients with an ALC ≥1000/µl before the second dose of ipilimumab (week 4) (47 % vs. 22 %, p = 0.002; Fig. 2c). The apparent better OS observed in patients who received all four ipilimumab doses, could be solely based on a time dependent bias, as receiving four doses of ipilimumab required surviving >10 weeks after therapy initiation. This only applied to 39 % of the patients who received <4, but not surprisingly all with four doses of ipilimumab. BRAF mutational status, the ALC before the first and the third dose of ipilimumab in patients with cutaneous melanoma were not associated with OS. In a multivariate analysis, the factors independently associated with better OS were the administration of four ipilimumab doses (e.g. patients with less than 4 doses were at higher risk of death; hazard ratio 4.3, 95 % CI 2.3–8.0), an ALC ≥1000/µl before the second dose of ipilimumab (week 4) (e.g. patients with ALC <1000/µl were at higher risk of death; hazard ratio 2.0; 95 % CI 1.1–3.8), and the absence of brain metastases (e.g. patients with brain metastases were at higher risk of death; hazard ratio 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0–3.5).
Fig. 2

Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) of subgroups (pretreated patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma). Subgroups were stratified as follows: by a the absence of brain metastases before the first dose of ipilimumab; Absence of brain metastases: median OS 12.3 months (95 % CI 6.0–19.4); brain metastases present: median OS 4.2 months (95 % CI 2.0–6.1); b the number of ipilimumab doses (4 versus <4); 4 doses: median OS 13.5 months (95 % CI 7.9–20.4); <4 doses: median OS 2.1 months (95 % CI 1.6–4.1); and c the absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) (≥1000/µl versus <1000/µl) before the second dose (i.e. week 4) of ipilimumab; ALC ≥1000/µl: median OS 9.9 months (95 % CI 6.1–18.5); ALC <1000/µl: median OS 3.6 months (95 % CI 1.8–5.6)

Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) of subgroups (pretreated patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma). Subgroups were stratified as follows: by a the absence of brain metastases before the first dose of ipilimumab; Absence of brain metastases: median OS 12.3 months (95 % CI 6.0–19.4); brain metastases present: median OS 4.2 months (95 % CI 2.0–6.1); b the number of ipilimumab doses (4 versus <4); 4 doses: median OS 13.5 months (95 % CI 7.9–20.4); <4 doses: median OS 2.1 months (95 % CI 1.6–4.1); and c the absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) (≥1000/µl versus <1000/µl) before the second dose (i.e. week 4) of ipilimumab; ALC ≥1000/µl: median OS 9.9 months (95 % CI 6.1–18.5); ALC <1000/µl: median OS 3.6 months (95 % CI 1.8–5.6)

Safety

Ninety-eight of 103 patients (95 %) experienced one or more AEs (Table 4). Treatment-related AEs were reported in 71 patients (69 %); 20 patients (19 %) had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 AEs. The majority of treatment-related AEs were irAEs, occurring in 52 patients (51 %). Most common irAEs were gastrointestinal disordersdiarrhea and colitis, skin-related toxic effects—pruritus and rash, and hepatic disorders—increased alanine aminotransferases (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferases (Table 4). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 irAEs were diarrhea and colitis, noted in ten (10 %) and 5 patients (5 %), respectively. There was one patient with a gastrointestinal perforation due to grade 3 colitis and diarrhea. After surgery and treatment with 2 mg/kg methylprednisolone intravenous, diarrhea and colitis improved and corticosteroid therapy was tapered slowly over 6 weeks. Immune-related AEs were generally reversible when managed as per protocol-specific treatment guidelines. Most of the irAEs resolved with corticosteroid therapy. None of the patients required additional immunosuppression with infliximab or mycophenylate mofetil. Treatment related non-irAEs included anemia, fatigue, bone pain, fever, nausea and vomiting. There was no treatment-related death.
Table 4

Reported adverse events in overall study population (n = 103 patients totally)

Adverse events (AE)a Cutaneous melanomaMucosal melanomaMUPTotal
No. patients (%)83 (100)7 (100)13 (100)103 (100)
All gradesGrade 3/4All gradesGrade 3/4All gradesGrade 3/4All gradesGrade 3/4
Patients with at least one AE 79 (95)36 (43)6 (86)4 (57)13 (100)7 (54)98 (95)47 (46)
Patients with treatment-related AE 57 (69)14 (17)3 (43)2 (29)11 (85)4 (31)71 (69)20 (19)
Patients with any irAE 40 (48)12 (15)2 (29)1 (14)10 (77)4 (31)52 (51)17 (17)
irDermatitis 21 (25)1 (14)3 (23)25 (24)
Pruritus8 (10)1 (14)2 (15)11 (11)
Rash8 (10)1 (8)9 (9)
Erythema multiforme4 (5)4 (4)
Hand-foot-syndrome1 (1)1 (1)
irGastrointestinal disorders 39 (47)15 (18)2 (28)1 (14)8 (62)4 (31)49 (48)20 (20)
Colitis6 (7)4 (5)1 (8)1 (8)7 (7)5 (5)
Diarrhea25 (30)8 (10)1 (14)1 (14)4 (31)1 (8)30 (29)10 (10)
GI-perforation1 (1)1 (1)1 (1)1 (1)
Otherb 7 (9)2 (2)1 (14)3 (23)2 (15)11 (11)4 (4)
irEndocrine disorders 5 (6)1 (1)5 (5)1 (1)
Hypophysitis4 (5)1 (1)4 (4)
Hypothyroidism1 (1)1 (1)
irHepatic disorders 4 (5)1 (1)4 (4)1 (1)
Increased ALT1 (1)1 (1)
Increased AST1 (1)1 (1)
Other2 (2)1 (1)2 (2)1 (1)

ir immune related, GI gastrointestinal, ALT alanine aminotransferases, AST aspartate aminotransferases, MUP melanoma of unknown primary

aPatients may have had more than one adverse event

bOther gastrointestinal disorders were abdominal pain (n = 6 grade 1/2; n = 3 grade 3/4), constipation (n = 1 grade 1/2) and elevated lipase (n = 1 grade 3/4)

Reported adverse events in overall study population (n = 103 patients totally) ir immune related, GI gastrointestinal, ALT alanine aminotransferases, AST aspartate aminotransferases, MUP melanoma of unknown primary aPatients may have had more than one adverse event bOther gastrointestinal disorders were abdominal pain (n = 6 grade 1/2; n = 3 grade 3/4), constipation (n = 1 grade 1/2) and elevated lipase (n = 1 grade 3/4)

Discussion

This prospective DeCOG phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in a cohort of 103 patients with 83 pretreated metastatic cutaneous, seven mucosal and 13 occult melanoma. The distribution rate of these clinical subgroups in our trial—considered as representative for a daily routine hospital setting—has been very similar to the rates reported for a named-patient program in Germany with approximately 200 patients [14] [Data not disclosed]. In both multi-center studies, patients with pretreated cutaneous melanoma represented approximately 80 % of all patients; patients with mucosal melanoma (DeCOG: 7 %; expanded access program (EAP) Germany: 5 %) and with occult melanoma (DeCOG: 13 %; EAP Germany: 11 %) were enrolled less frequently. Very similar distribution rates were also reported from large EAPs with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab in Italy, Spain and Australia [15-17] (Additional file 4: Table S4), with rather constant percentages of mucosal melanoma patients (ranging from 7 to 8 %) and occult melanoma patients (6–8 %) enrolled. The reported OS rate at 12 months of 38 % for patients with cutaneous melanoma is fitting with data from several other studies (range 33–38 %) (Additional file 4: Table S4) enrolling daily clinical routine patients with a high portion of this melanoma subgroup [14-17]; a report on an EAP run in the Netherlands and the UK with cutaneous melanoma patients only also resulted into an 1-year OS rate of 38 % [18]. In a pivotal, randomized phase II dose-ranging study, in which patients with ocular and mucosal melanoma were excluded as well as patients with brain metastases, the OS rate at 12 months for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg arm of a similar size was 39 % [19]. 2-year survival rates in our study (22 %), in the Dutch-UK expanded access cohort (23 %) [18] and in the pivotal phase II study (24 %) [19] were very similar too: these rates also match with recently published data from a pooled analysis of long-term survival data from approximately 5000 patients included in the ipilimumab pivotal clinical trials and the EAP [20]. This landmark analysis depicts a plateau in the iplilimumab survival curves at around 20 %. Compared to skin melanoma, primary noncutaneous melanomas show a less favorable outcome when treated with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab. For occult and mucosal melanoma we found lower 1-year survival rates with 27 and 14 %, respectively. Due to the very low patient numbers, the figures for mucosal melanoma are difficult to interpret. However, similar findings were reported from the Australian EAP [17]—the only other study so far reporting OS outcomes for cutaneous versus noncutaneous melanoma treated with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab. Here, the median OS for cutaneous melanoma was twice as high (11.7 months) as for patients with uveal (5.7 months) or mucosal (5.8 months) melanoma. Again, the low number of patients with noncutaneous melanoma resulted into very huge confidence intervals. In the Italian EAP, a median OS of 6.4 months was reported for 71 patients with mucosal melanoma [21]—a value slightly below the 6.8 months reported for the overall patient collective of around 850 patients, 74 % of them with cutaneous melanoma [15]. However, survival data for cutaneous melanoma patients only were not reported from Italy. A retrospective case series from the US similarly found a median OS of 6.4 months for a cohort of 34 mucosal melanoma patients [22]. These estimates all remain below the median OS of 10–11 months, reported for primarily cutaneous melanoma patient collectives in the pivotal phase III trial with highly selected patients and a retrospective long-term-survival landmark analysis [6, 20]. The observed OS difference may be explained by the acknowledged aggressive character of mucosal melanoma; this clinical subgroup represents distinct clinicopathological and molecular features linked with reduced survival rates [10, 21]. For the 13 patients with occult melanoma, data for comparison of efficacy are not available from other studies (Additional file 4: Table S4). Due to the small sample, the inconclusive outcomes in terms of median overall survival and 1-year survival rate do not allow any conclusion, although a better survival outcome for stage IV patients with nodal metastasis of melanoma from an unknown primary (MUP) versus melanoma from a known primary has been reported in a retrospective cohort study [23]. The relative high portion of occult melanoma patients in our initial study cohort, as compared to literature [24, 25], is considered as a selection effect, because such patients usually cannot be included into clinical trials. In our study, four doses of ipilimumab, the absence of brain metastases, and an ALC ≥1000/µl at week 4 were identified as factors independently associated with a better OS in the 83 patients with cutaneous melanoma. These findings enforce the current level of evidence gained by several studies that the completion of the four-dose-induction phase [14, 26], the absence of brain metastases [14-16], and high ALC counts and/or changes in ALC pharmacodynamics [16–18, 26–29] are predictive for a significant prolongation of survival of ipilimumab-treated patients. Investigations continue to further clarify the role of ALC as an on-treatment pharmacodynamic marker of ipilimumab activity. However, biomarkers to select upfront the right patients for ipilimumab use are still missing. The identification of an immunological biomarker during the development of the anti PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab [30, 31] and the subsequent validation of PD-L1 expression in the course of the pivotal phase III trials [2, 32–34] documents the potential and usefulness of such an approach. Ultimately, melanoma patients are expected to further benefit from a combination of such immunological treatment approaches, administered either sequentially [2, 4, 5] or concomitantly [35]. Furthermore, two PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab [34] and nivolumab [33], as well as the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab have been shown to improve the progression-free [33, 34] and overall survival [34] compared with ipilimumab in phase 3 clinical trials in patients with metastatic melanoma. Similar to previous studies of ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg/kg [6, 36] immune-related dermatological AEs, i.e. pruritus and rash, and immune-related gastrointestinal AEs, i.e. diarrhea and colitis were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. The rate of grade 3 and 4 treatment-related AEs in patients with cutaneous melanoma were in line with the results of the pivotal phase III trial of ipilimumab [6]. Most of the irAEs were reversible when managed as per protocol-specific treatment guidelines and resolved with systemic glucocorticosteroid therapy. No new and unexpected safety findings were noted except one death with unknown cause was reported and the causal relationship to ipilimumab could not be excluded as per investigator. Our phase II trial was limited by several factors; (1) the single-arm, non-randomized phase II design, however, at the time of study enrollment, no clear standard therapy for pretreated metastatic melanoma, especially for metastatic mucosal melanoma existed, (2) the small sample sizes of patients with mucosal and occult melanoma, (3) the lack of central review of imaging studies, and (4) the missing classification of tumor assessments according to immune-related response criteria [37].

Conclusions

In conclusion, ipilimumab is a treatment option for patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma seen in daily routine. Given the small number of patients with metastatic mucosal and occult melanoma, it is not possible to determine whether ipilimumab has activity in these melanoma subgroups. The ALC at week 4 appears to be an early biomarker of response and need further confirmation in randomized controlled trials. Immune-related AEs were manageable and reversible in most of the cases.
  35 in total

1.  Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation.

Authors:  Caroline Robert; Georgina V Long; Benjamin Brady; Caroline Dutriaux; Michele Maio; Laurent Mortier; Jessica C Hassel; Piotr Rutkowski; Catriona McNeil; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Kerry J Savage; Micaela M Hernberg; Celeste Lebbé; Julie Charles; Catalin Mihalcioiu; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Cornelia Mauch; Francesco Cognetti; Ana Arance; Henrik Schmidt; Dirk Schadendorf; Helen Gogas; Lotta Lundgren-Eriksson; Christine Horak; Brian Sharkey; Ian M Waxman; Victoria Atkinson; Paolo A Ascierto
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Lactate dehydrogenase as a selection criterion for ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma.

Authors:  Sander Kelderman; Bianca Heemskerk; Harm van Tinteren; Rob R H van den Brom; Geke A P Hospers; Alfonsus J M van den Eertwegh; Ellen W Kapiteijn; Jan Willem B de Groot; Patricia Soetekouw; Rob L Jansen; Edward Fiets; Andrew J S Furness; Alexandra Renn; Marcin Krzystanek; Zoltan Szallasi; Paul Lorigan; Martin E Gore; Ton N M Schumacher; John B A G Haanen; James M G Larkin; Christian U Blank
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2014-03-08       Impact factor: 6.968

3.  Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Weber; Sandra P D'Angelo; David Minor; F Stephen Hodi; Ralf Gutzmer; Bart Neyns; Christoph Hoeller; Nikhil I Khushalani; Wilson H Miller; Christopher D Lao; Gerald P Linette; Luc Thomas; Paul Lorigan; Kenneth F Grossmann; Jessica C Hassel; Michele Maio; Mario Sznol; Paolo A Ascierto; Peter Mohr; Bartosz Chmielowski; Alan Bryce; Inge M Svane; Jean-Jacques Grob; Angela M Krackhardt; Christine Horak; Alexandre Lambert; Arvin S Yang; James Larkin
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Ipilimumab in pretreated patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous, uveal and mucosal melanoma.

Authors:  Marliese Alexander; James D Mellor; Grant McArthur; Damien Kee
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 7.738

5.  Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial.

Authors:  Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi; Omid Hamid; Richard Kefford; Jeffrey S Weber; Anthony M Joshua; Wen-Jen Hwu; Tara C Gangadhar; Amita Patnaik; Roxana Dronca; Hassane Zarour; Richard W Joseph; Peter Boasberg; Bartosz Chmielowski; Christine Mateus; Michael A Postow; Kevin Gergich; Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; Robert Iannone; Scot W Ebbinghaus; S Peter Kang; Adil Daud
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab 3mg/kg in patients with pretreated, metastatic, mucosal melanoma.

Authors:  Michele Del Vecchio; Lorenza Di Guardo; Paolo A Ascierto; Antonio M Grimaldi; Vanna Chiarion Sileni; Jacopo Pigozzo; Virginia Ferraresi; Carmen Nuzzo; Gaetana Rinaldi; Alessandro Testori; Pier F Ferrucci; Paolo Marchetti; Federica De Galitiis; Paola Queirolo; Elena Tornari; Riccardo Marconcini; Luana Calabrò; Michele Maio
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Immunological and biological changes during ipilimumab treatment and their potential correlation with clinical response and survival in patients with advanced melanoma.

Authors:  Ester Simeone; Giusy Gentilcore; Diana Giannarelli; Antonio M Grimaldi; Corrado Caracò; Marcello Curvietto; Assunta Esposito; Miriam Paone; Marco Palla; Ernesta Cavalcanti; Fabio Sandomenico; Antonella Petrillo; Gerardo Botti; Franco Fulciniti; Giuseppe Palmieri; Paola Queirolo; Paolo Marchetti; Virginia Ferraresi; Gaetana Rinaldi; Maria Pia Pistillo; Gennaro Ciliberto; Nicola Mozzillo; Paolo A Ascierto
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 6.968

8.  Effectiveness and tolerability of ipilimumab: experiences from 198 patients included in a named-patient program in various daily-practice settings and multiple institutions.

Authors:  Thomas K Eigentler; Max Schlaak; Jessica C Hassel; Carmen Loquai; Ingo Stoffels; Ralf Gutzmer; Sylvie Pätzold; Peter Mohr; Ulrich Keller; Hans Starz; Jens Ulrich; Athanasios Tsianakas; Katharina Kähler; Axel Hauschild; Eva Janssen; Beatrice Schuler-Thurner; Benjamin Weide; Claus Garbe
Journal:  J Immunother       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.456

9.  Ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: experience from the Spanish Expanded Access Program.

Authors:  Alfonso Berrocal; Ana Arance; Jose Antonio Lopez Martin; Virtudes Soriano; Eva Muñoz; Lorenzo Alonso; Enrique Espinosa; Pilar Lopez Criado; Javier Valdivia; Salvador Martin Algarra
Journal:  Melanoma Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.599

10.  Phase II DeCOG-study of ipilimumab in pretreated and treatment-naïve patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Lisa Zimmer; Julia Vaubel; Peter Mohr; Axel Hauschild; Jochen Utikal; Jan Simon; Claus Garbe; Rudolf Herbst; Alexander Enk; Eckhart Kämpgen; Elisabeth Livingstone; Leonie Bluhm; Rainer Rompel; Klaus G Griewank; Michael Fluck; Bastian Schilling; Dirk Schadendorf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  Keeping Tumors in Check: A Mechanistic Review of Clinical Response and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Cancer.

Authors:  Nicholas Borcherding; Ryan Kolb; Jodi Gullicksrud; Praveen Vikas; Yuwen Zhu; Weizhou Zhang
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 5.469

2.  Immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of advanced mucosal melanoma.

Authors:  James C Kuo
Journal:  Melanoma Manag       Date:  2017-10-04

Review 3.  Treatment Outcomes for Metastatic Melanoma of Unknown Primary in the New Era: A Single-Institution Study and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Kierstin Utter; Chloe Goldman; Sarah A Weiss; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Melissa Ann Wilson; Anna C Pavlick; Iman Osman
Journal:  Oncology       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 2.935

Review 4.  Myeloid-derived suppressor cells and tumor escape from immune surveillance.

Authors:  Viktor Umansky; Carolin Blattner; Viktor Fleming; Xiaoying Hu; Christoffer Gebhardt; Peter Altevogt; Jochen Utikal
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 9.623

5.  Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Alone or in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Authors:  Sandra P D'Angelo; James Larkin; Jeffrey A Sosman; Celeste Lebbé; Benjamin Brady; Bart Neyns; Henrik Schmidt; Jessica C Hassel; F Stephen Hodi; Paul Lorigan; Kerry J Savage; Wilson H Miller; Peter Mohr; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Julie Charles; Martin Kaatz; Mario Sznol; Jeffrey S Weber; Alexander N Shoushtari; Mary Ruisi; Joel Jiang; Jedd D Wolchok
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-11-07       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Brain Metastases.

Authors:  Aaron C Tan; Amy B Heimberger; Alexander M Menzies; Nick Pavlakis; Mustafa Khasraw
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 7.  Ipilimumab-Induced Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kelcie Witges; Leigh Anne Shafer; Ryan Zarychanski; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Rasheda Rabbani; Orvie Dingwall; Charles N Bernstein
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 8.  The Treatment of Melanoma Brain Metastases.

Authors:  Nour Kibbi; Harriet Kluger
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Long-term survival with modern therapeutic agents against metastatic melanoma-vemurafenib and ipilimumab in a daily life setting.

Authors:  B M Lang; A Peveling-Oberhag; D Faidt; A M Hötker; V Weyer-Elberich; S Grabbe; C Loquai
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.064

10.  Efficacy and safety of BRAF inhibitors and anti-CTLA4 antibody in melanoma patients-real-world data.

Authors:  Marta Polkowska; Paweł Ekk-Cierniakowski; Edyta Czepielewska; Małgorzata Kozłowska-Wojciechowska
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.