Melanoma

Immunotherapy after resection of the primary tumor improved survival in some patients with stage III melanoma in an analysis presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Among patients with stage IIIC disease, the 2-year survival rate was 70% in those who received immunotherapy and 59% in those who did not (P < .01). The median overall survival in this group was 32.8 months with immunotherapy and 28 months without it (P < .01).

Among patients with stage IIIA disease, the 2-year survival rate was 94% with immunotherapy and 91% without it (P = .03).

There was a trend toward a 2-year survival benefit with immunotherapy in patients with stage IIIB disease and in all 4,094 stage III patients, but the differences were not significant. The 2-year survival rate was 84% with immunotherapy and 81% without it among patients with stage IIIB disease (P = .35). The survival rates were 83% and 80%, respectively, in all stage III patients (P = .051).

This was an early analysis, noted investigator Justin Moyers, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University. Ipilimumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma patients in 2015, the year patients from this analysis were diagnosed.

“There’s really only 2 full years of survival data,” Dr. Moyers said. “I think given time, we will see a benefit amongst all the substages.”

In the meantime, “I would definitely not use this data to say whether or not [immunotherapy] should be given,” Dr. Moyers said.

The researchers were just using the database – which captures 52% of U.S. melanoma cases – to see if “real-world data mimics the clinical trial data,” Dr. Moyers said.

Overall, the findings support “adjuvant immunotherapy in the real-world setting,” he said.

The researchers also looked at treatment patterns in 2015-2016 across 8,160 patients with stage III melanoma, 4,094 of whom were included in the aforementioned survival analysis. There were 2,260 patients (27.7%) who received immunotherapy after surgery during that time period.

Uptake of adjuvant immunotherapy “was low to start, but those patients did better than ones who did not get” it, said AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

Immunotherapy recipients were younger, on average (54.8 years vs. 62.4 years). Patients with Charlson comorbidity scores above zero and those on Medicare were less likely to receive immunotherapy (18.4% Medicare vs. over 30% with other payers). There also were trends of decreased use with lower income and lower high school graduation rates.

The finding “highlights the negative impact of socioeconomic [factors] on access to proven therapy,” Dr. Ribas said.

As for low use among Medicare patients, uptake of new treatments, in general, “seems to be faster with private insurance,” he noted.

The study excluded patients who received systemic therapies other than immunotherapy, as well as those who received immunotherapy before surgery. Among study limitations, the specific immunotherapies patients received was unknown.

There was no external funding for this study. Dr. Moyers reported travel compensation from Astellas Pharmaceuticals in 2018. Dr. Ribas disclosed relationships with Amgen, Chugai, Merck, Sanofi, Tango, Arcus, Bioncotech, Compugen, CytomX, FLX Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Merus, Rgenix, and PACT.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moyers J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 4338.

Immunotherapy after resection of the primary tumor improved survival in some patients with stage III melanoma in an analysis presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Among patients with stage IIIC disease, the 2-year survival rate was 70% in those who received immunotherapy and 59% in those who did not (P < .01). The median overall survival in this group was 32.8 months with immunotherapy and 28 months without it (P < .01).

Among patients with stage IIIA disease, the 2-year survival rate was 94% with immunotherapy and 91% without it (P = .03).

There was a trend toward a 2-year survival benefit with immunotherapy in patients with stage IIIB disease and in all 4,094 stage III patients, but the differences were not significant. The 2-year survival rate was 84% with immunotherapy and 81% without it among patients with stage IIIB disease (P = .35). The survival rates were 83% and 80%, respectively, in all stage III patients (P = .051).

This was an early analysis, noted investigator Justin Moyers, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University. Ipilimumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma patients in 2015, the year patients from this analysis were diagnosed.

“There’s really only 2 full years of survival data,” Dr. Moyers said. “I think given time, we will see a benefit amongst all the substages.”

In the meantime, “I would definitely not use this data to say whether or not [immunotherapy] should be given,” Dr. Moyers said.

The researchers were just using the database – which captures 52% of U.S. melanoma cases – to see if “real-world data mimics the clinical trial data,” Dr. Moyers said.

Overall, the findings support “adjuvant immunotherapy in the real-world setting,” he said.

The researchers also looked at treatment patterns in 2015-2016 across 8,160 patients with stage III melanoma, 4,094 of whom were included in the aforementioned survival analysis. There were 2,260 patients (27.7%) who received immunotherapy after surgery during that time period.

Uptake of adjuvant immunotherapy “was low to start, but those patients did better than ones who did not get” it, said AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

Immunotherapy recipients were younger, on average (54.8 years vs. 62.4 years). Patients with Charlson comorbidity scores above zero and those on Medicare were less likely to receive immunotherapy (18.4% Medicare vs. over 30% with other payers). There also were trends of decreased use with lower income and lower high school graduation rates.

The finding “highlights the negative impact of socioeconomic [factors] on access to proven therapy,” Dr. Ribas said.

As for low use among Medicare patients, uptake of new treatments, in general, “seems to be faster with private insurance,” he noted.

The study excluded patients who received systemic therapies other than immunotherapy, as well as those who received immunotherapy before surgery. Among study limitations, the specific immunotherapies patients received was unknown.

There was no external funding for this study. Dr. Moyers reported travel compensation from Astellas Pharmaceuticals in 2018. Dr. Ribas disclosed relationships with Amgen, Chugai, Merck, Sanofi, Tango, Arcus, Bioncotech, Compugen, CytomX, FLX Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Merus, Rgenix, and PACT.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moyers J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 4338.

Immunotherapy after resection of the primary tumor improved survival in some patients with stage III melanoma in an analysis presented at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Among patients with stage IIIC disease, the 2-year survival rate was 70% in those who received immunotherapy and 59% in those who did not (P < .01). The median overall survival in this group was 32.8 months with immunotherapy and 28 months without it (P < .01).

Among patients with stage IIIA disease, the 2-year survival rate was 94% with immunotherapy and 91% without it (P = .03).

There was a trend toward a 2-year survival benefit with immunotherapy in patients with stage IIIB disease and in all 4,094 stage III patients, but the differences were not significant. The 2-year survival rate was 84% with immunotherapy and 81% without it among patients with stage IIIB disease (P = .35). The survival rates were 83% and 80%, respectively, in all stage III patients (P = .051).

This was an early analysis, noted investigator Justin Moyers, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University. Ipilimumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma patients in 2015, the year patients from this analysis were diagnosed.

“There’s really only 2 full years of survival data,” Dr. Moyers said. “I think given time, we will see a benefit amongst all the substages.”

In the meantime, “I would definitely not use this data to say whether or not [immunotherapy] should be given,” Dr. Moyers said.

The researchers were just using the database – which captures 52% of U.S. melanoma cases – to see if “real-world data mimics the clinical trial data,” Dr. Moyers said.

Overall, the findings support “adjuvant immunotherapy in the real-world setting,” he said.

The researchers also looked at treatment patterns in 2015-2016 across 8,160 patients with stage III melanoma, 4,094 of whom were included in the aforementioned survival analysis. There were 2,260 patients (27.7%) who received immunotherapy after surgery during that time period.

Uptake of adjuvant immunotherapy “was low to start, but those patients did better than ones who did not get” it, said AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

Immunotherapy recipients were younger, on average (54.8 years vs. 62.4 years). Patients with Charlson comorbidity scores above zero and those on Medicare were less likely to receive immunotherapy (18.4% Medicare vs. over 30% with other payers). There also were trends of decreased use with lower income and lower high school graduation rates.

The finding “highlights the negative impact of socioeconomic [factors] on access to proven therapy,” Dr. Ribas said.

As for low use among Medicare patients, uptake of new treatments, in general, “seems to be faster with private insurance,” he noted.

The study excluded patients who received systemic therapies other than immunotherapy, as well as those who received immunotherapy before surgery. Among study limitations, the specific immunotherapies patients received was unknown.

There was no external funding for this study. Dr. Moyers reported travel compensation from Astellas Pharmaceuticals in 2018. Dr. Ribas disclosed relationships with Amgen, Chugai, Merck, Sanofi, Tango, Arcus, Bioncotech, Compugen, CytomX, FLX Bio, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Merus, Rgenix, and PACT.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moyers J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 4338.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

The number of suspicious lesions needed to refer to diagnose melanoma was 31.5, while the number needed to biopsy was 7.5. At the same time, the number needed to refer to diagnose non-melanoma skin cancer was 4 and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5.

The findings come from a retrospective review of 707 patients referred to a tertiary medical center dermatology practice for suspicious lesions, presented in a poster session at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology

“Multiple studies in the dermatology literature have looked at the number needed to treat (NNT) as a quality metric for dermatology clinics, where a lower number is ‘better,’” the study’s first author, Nikolai Klebanov, MD, said in an interview following the virtual meeting. “Our particular study is unique in that we estimated both the number needed to refer and number needed to biopsy to closely examine the process of referrals for suspicious lesions from primary care settings to specialists. We also looked closely at the underlying patient-centered characteristics, which could be used by all clinicians to streamline the referral process by reducing the volume of low-risk referrals.”

Dr. Klebanov, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his associates reviewed 707 unique patient visits to the department during July 2015–February 2016. They calculated the number needed to refer and biopsy for melanoma as the ratio of biopsy-proven melanoma diagnoses among benign and dysplastic nevi and seborrheic keratoses. For nonmelanoma skin cancer, they used the ratio of basal and squamous cell carcinoma among actinic keratoses and seborrheic keratoses.

Of the 707 patients, 54% were female, and males were slightly older than females (a mean of 58 vs. 54 years, respectively). The researchers found that lesions were more commonly benign among all age groups, while the frequency of premalignant and malignant lesions such as actinic keratoses, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and melanoma was highest for males and increased with age. Nevi were the most common benign diagnosis among patients 39 years of age and younger, while seborrheic keratoses were more common among patients aged 40 years and older.

The researchers found that the number needed to treat for melanoma was 31.5 and the number needed to biopsy was 7.5, which represents a 4.2-fold difference. Meanwhile, the number needed to refer for nonmelanoma skin cancer was 4, and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5, which represents a 2.7-fold difference. Despite variable rates of skin cancer between demographics, the biopsy rate ranged between 18% and 30%, for a mean of 23.4%.

“We found that most young patients referred for a ‘suspicious lesion’ on clinical prebiopsy assessment by the dermatologist were determined to actually have a benign nevus, and that older patients were most likely to have a seborrheic keratosis as the underlying lesion,” Dr. Klebanov said. “Among the minority of patients in each demographic group who were selected for biopsy, those lesions which were found to be benign were also largely nevi and keratoses. Even by being mindful of just the patient’s age, primary care providers can follow patients clinically with a tailored differential diagnosis in mind before referral, and dermatologists can reduce the number of biopsies they perform on patients who are being referred.”

He added that he and his colleagues were surprised that despite very low rates of skin cancer in young patients, and thus different pretest probabilities of cancer, biopsy rates across demographics were consistently around 20%. “We also found a disproportionate number of female patients younger than age 40 who were referred for suspicious lesions, while in the older age groups, the ratio of males to females was approximately equal.”

Dr. Klebanov acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design, and that information was not collected on patients’ family history of skin cancer, Fitzpatrick skin type, nor the clinical course of the lesion while it was followed by the primary care office. “The nuanced differences in these factors may certainly play a role in decisions for individual patients,” he said.

The study’s principal investigator was Hensin Tsao MD, PhD, clinical director of the MGH Melanoma & Pigmented Lesion Center The work was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn Kuckein Research Fellowship. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klebanov N et al. AAD 20. Abstract 15881.

The number of suspicious lesions needed to refer to diagnose melanoma was 31.5, while the number needed to biopsy was 7.5. At the same time, the number needed to refer to diagnose non-melanoma skin cancer was 4 and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5.

The findings come from a retrospective review of 707 patients referred to a tertiary medical center dermatology practice for suspicious lesions, presented in a poster session at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology

“Multiple studies in the dermatology literature have looked at the number needed to treat (NNT) as a quality metric for dermatology clinics, where a lower number is ‘better,’” the study’s first author, Nikolai Klebanov, MD, said in an interview following the virtual meeting. “Our particular study is unique in that we estimated both the number needed to refer and number needed to biopsy to closely examine the process of referrals for suspicious lesions from primary care settings to specialists. We also looked closely at the underlying patient-centered characteristics, which could be used by all clinicians to streamline the referral process by reducing the volume of low-risk referrals.”

Dr. Klebanov, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his associates reviewed 707 unique patient visits to the department during July 2015–February 2016. They calculated the number needed to refer and biopsy for melanoma as the ratio of biopsy-proven melanoma diagnoses among benign and dysplastic nevi and seborrheic keratoses. For nonmelanoma skin cancer, they used the ratio of basal and squamous cell carcinoma among actinic keratoses and seborrheic keratoses.

Of the 707 patients, 54% were female, and males were slightly older than females (a mean of 58 vs. 54 years, respectively). The researchers found that lesions were more commonly benign among all age groups, while the frequency of premalignant and malignant lesions such as actinic keratoses, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and melanoma was highest for males and increased with age. Nevi were the most common benign diagnosis among patients 39 years of age and younger, while seborrheic keratoses were more common among patients aged 40 years and older.

The researchers found that the number needed to treat for melanoma was 31.5 and the number needed to biopsy was 7.5, which represents a 4.2-fold difference. Meanwhile, the number needed to refer for nonmelanoma skin cancer was 4, and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5, which represents a 2.7-fold difference. Despite variable rates of skin cancer between demographics, the biopsy rate ranged between 18% and 30%, for a mean of 23.4%.

“We found that most young patients referred for a ‘suspicious lesion’ on clinical prebiopsy assessment by the dermatologist were determined to actually have a benign nevus, and that older patients were most likely to have a seborrheic keratosis as the underlying lesion,” Dr. Klebanov said. “Among the minority of patients in each demographic group who were selected for biopsy, those lesions which were found to be benign were also largely nevi and keratoses. Even by being mindful of just the patient’s age, primary care providers can follow patients clinically with a tailored differential diagnosis in mind before referral, and dermatologists can reduce the number of biopsies they perform on patients who are being referred.”

He added that he and his colleagues were surprised that despite very low rates of skin cancer in young patients, and thus different pretest probabilities of cancer, biopsy rates across demographics were consistently around 20%. “We also found a disproportionate number of female patients younger than age 40 who were referred for suspicious lesions, while in the older age groups, the ratio of males to females was approximately equal.”

Dr. Klebanov acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design, and that information was not collected on patients’ family history of skin cancer, Fitzpatrick skin type, nor the clinical course of the lesion while it was followed by the primary care office. “The nuanced differences in these factors may certainly play a role in decisions for individual patients,” he said.

The study’s principal investigator was Hensin Tsao MD, PhD, clinical director of the MGH Melanoma & Pigmented Lesion Center The work was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn Kuckein Research Fellowship. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klebanov N et al. AAD 20. Abstract 15881.

The number of suspicious lesions needed to refer to diagnose melanoma was 31.5, while the number needed to biopsy was 7.5. At the same time, the number needed to refer to diagnose non-melanoma skin cancer was 4 and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5.

The findings come from a retrospective review of 707 patients referred to a tertiary medical center dermatology practice for suspicious lesions, presented in a poster session at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology

“Multiple studies in the dermatology literature have looked at the number needed to treat (NNT) as a quality metric for dermatology clinics, where a lower number is ‘better,’” the study’s first author, Nikolai Klebanov, MD, said in an interview following the virtual meeting. “Our particular study is unique in that we estimated both the number needed to refer and number needed to biopsy to closely examine the process of referrals for suspicious lesions from primary care settings to specialists. We also looked closely at the underlying patient-centered characteristics, which could be used by all clinicians to streamline the referral process by reducing the volume of low-risk referrals.”

Dr. Klebanov, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and his associates reviewed 707 unique patient visits to the department during July 2015–February 2016. They calculated the number needed to refer and biopsy for melanoma as the ratio of biopsy-proven melanoma diagnoses among benign and dysplastic nevi and seborrheic keratoses. For nonmelanoma skin cancer, they used the ratio of basal and squamous cell carcinoma among actinic keratoses and seborrheic keratoses.

Of the 707 patients, 54% were female, and males were slightly older than females (a mean of 58 vs. 54 years, respectively). The researchers found that lesions were more commonly benign among all age groups, while the frequency of premalignant and malignant lesions such as actinic keratoses, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and melanoma was highest for males and increased with age. Nevi were the most common benign diagnosis among patients 39 years of age and younger, while seborrheic keratoses were more common among patients aged 40 years and older.

The researchers found that the number needed to treat for melanoma was 31.5 and the number needed to biopsy was 7.5, which represents a 4.2-fold difference. Meanwhile, the number needed to refer for nonmelanoma skin cancer was 4, and the number needed to biopsy was 1.5, which represents a 2.7-fold difference. Despite variable rates of skin cancer between demographics, the biopsy rate ranged between 18% and 30%, for a mean of 23.4%.

“We found that most young patients referred for a ‘suspicious lesion’ on clinical prebiopsy assessment by the dermatologist were determined to actually have a benign nevus, and that older patients were most likely to have a seborrheic keratosis as the underlying lesion,” Dr. Klebanov said. “Among the minority of patients in each demographic group who were selected for biopsy, those lesions which were found to be benign were also largely nevi and keratoses. Even by being mindful of just the patient’s age, primary care providers can follow patients clinically with a tailored differential diagnosis in mind before referral, and dermatologists can reduce the number of biopsies they perform on patients who are being referred.”

He added that he and his colleagues were surprised that despite very low rates of skin cancer in young patients, and thus different pretest probabilities of cancer, biopsy rates across demographics were consistently around 20%. “We also found a disproportionate number of female patients younger than age 40 who were referred for suspicious lesions, while in the older age groups, the ratio of males to females was approximately equal.”

Dr. Klebanov acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design, and that information was not collected on patients’ family history of skin cancer, Fitzpatrick skin type, nor the clinical course of the lesion while it was followed by the primary care office. “The nuanced differences in these factors may certainly play a role in decisions for individual patients,” he said.

The study’s principal investigator was Hensin Tsao MD, PhD, clinical director of the MGH Melanoma & Pigmented Lesion Center The work was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn Kuckein Research Fellowship. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klebanov N et al. AAD 20. Abstract 15881.

The national incidence of vulvar melanoma is on the rise in women aged over 60 years, climbing by an average of 2.2% per year during 2000-2016, Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).

One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.

About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.

Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The national incidence of vulvar melanoma is on the rise in women aged over 60 years, climbing by an average of 2.2% per year during 2000-2016, Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).

One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.

About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.

Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The national incidence of vulvar melanoma is on the rise in women aged over 60 years, climbing by an average of 2.2% per year during 2000-2016, Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).

One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.

About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.

Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Combination toripalimab and axitinib produced promising early results in patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma, according to a presentation made as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The combination was well tolerated and “the preliminary efficacy seems to be promising,” which warrants a phase 3 trial, said investigator Jun Guo, MD, of the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, who presented the findings.

Mucosal melanoma does not respond as well as cutaneous melanoma to standard programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade, so investigators are looking for additional options, Dr. Guo noted. Earlier studies have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor expression correlates negatively with clinical outcome, so the combination of VEGF inhibition with PD-1 blockade might provide therapeutic opportunities.

To find out, Dr. Guo and colleagues tested the anti-PD-1 antibody toripalimab in combination with the VEGF inhibitor axitinib in a phase 1 trial. The trial was conducted in China, where mucosal melanoma accounts for up to a quarter of all melanoma cases and where toripalimab is approved to treat mucosal melanoma.

The trial enrolled 33 patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic mucosal melanoma. The esophagus and genital tract were the most common primary lesion sites (both 21.2%). The patients’ average age was 53.4 years, and 60.6% were women. Two patients (6.1%) had previously received systemic chemotherapy. Most (64.6%) were PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative, and most (60.6%) were BRAF/RAS/NF1 wild type.

The patients received axitinib at 5 mg twice daily plus toripalimab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal.

As of May 2, 2020, the overall response rate was 48.5%. There were 15 partial responses and 1 complete response. The median duration of response was 13.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months, and the median overall survival was 20.7 months.

Progression-free and overall survival were numerically higher in PD-L1-positive subjects and those with higher tumor mutation burdens. An expression profile of 12 genes related to inflammation and angiogenesis showed a significant correlation with response. This might help identify patients most likely to respond to the combination, but further validation is needed, Dr. Guo said.

A total of 32 subjects (97%) have had a treatment-related adverse event, including 13 (39.4%) with grade 3-5 events. The most common of these were proteinuria, hypertension, and neutropenia (all 9.1%).

“So does this study address the unmet need? In many ways, yes,” said Ryan Sullivan, MD, an assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and the discussant on Dr. Guo’s presentation.

“However, the data to date [don’t] mean we should be treating all of our mucosal melanoma patients with axitinib plus an anti-PD-1 antibody. There needs to be randomized data, but I would describe this data as very encouraging,” he said.

The study was funded by the maker of toripalimab, Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Guo disclosed relationships with Shanghai Junshi Bioscience and Pfizer, maker of axitinib. Other investigators are employed by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Sullivan reported institutional research funding from Pfizer.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Guo J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10007.

Combination toripalimab and axitinib produced promising early results in patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma, according to a presentation made as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The combination was well tolerated and “the preliminary efficacy seems to be promising,” which warrants a phase 3 trial, said investigator Jun Guo, MD, of the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, who presented the findings.

Mucosal melanoma does not respond as well as cutaneous melanoma to standard programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade, so investigators are looking for additional options, Dr. Guo noted. Earlier studies have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor expression correlates negatively with clinical outcome, so the combination of VEGF inhibition with PD-1 blockade might provide therapeutic opportunities.

To find out, Dr. Guo and colleagues tested the anti-PD-1 antibody toripalimab in combination with the VEGF inhibitor axitinib in a phase 1 trial. The trial was conducted in China, where mucosal melanoma accounts for up to a quarter of all melanoma cases and where toripalimab is approved to treat mucosal melanoma.

The trial enrolled 33 patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic mucosal melanoma. The esophagus and genital tract were the most common primary lesion sites (both 21.2%). The patients’ average age was 53.4 years, and 60.6% were women. Two patients (6.1%) had previously received systemic chemotherapy. Most (64.6%) were PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative, and most (60.6%) were BRAF/RAS/NF1 wild type.

The patients received axitinib at 5 mg twice daily plus toripalimab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal.

As of May 2, 2020, the overall response rate was 48.5%. There were 15 partial responses and 1 complete response. The median duration of response was 13.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months, and the median overall survival was 20.7 months.

Progression-free and overall survival were numerically higher in PD-L1-positive subjects and those with higher tumor mutation burdens. An expression profile of 12 genes related to inflammation and angiogenesis showed a significant correlation with response. This might help identify patients most likely to respond to the combination, but further validation is needed, Dr. Guo said.

A total of 32 subjects (97%) have had a treatment-related adverse event, including 13 (39.4%) with grade 3-5 events. The most common of these were proteinuria, hypertension, and neutropenia (all 9.1%).

“So does this study address the unmet need? In many ways, yes,” said Ryan Sullivan, MD, an assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and the discussant on Dr. Guo’s presentation.

“However, the data to date [don’t] mean we should be treating all of our mucosal melanoma patients with axitinib plus an anti-PD-1 antibody. There needs to be randomized data, but I would describe this data as very encouraging,” he said.

The study was funded by the maker of toripalimab, Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Guo disclosed relationships with Shanghai Junshi Bioscience and Pfizer, maker of axitinib. Other investigators are employed by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Sullivan reported institutional research funding from Pfizer.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Guo J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10007.

Combination toripalimab and axitinib produced promising early results in patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma, according to a presentation made as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

The combination was well tolerated and “the preliminary efficacy seems to be promising,” which warrants a phase 3 trial, said investigator Jun Guo, MD, of the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing, who presented the findings.

Mucosal melanoma does not respond as well as cutaneous melanoma to standard programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade, so investigators are looking for additional options, Dr. Guo noted. Earlier studies have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor expression correlates negatively with clinical outcome, so the combination of VEGF inhibition with PD-1 blockade might provide therapeutic opportunities.

To find out, Dr. Guo and colleagues tested the anti-PD-1 antibody toripalimab in combination with the VEGF inhibitor axitinib in a phase 1 trial. The trial was conducted in China, where mucosal melanoma accounts for up to a quarter of all melanoma cases and where toripalimab is approved to treat mucosal melanoma.

The trial enrolled 33 patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic mucosal melanoma. The esophagus and genital tract were the most common primary lesion sites (both 21.2%). The patients’ average age was 53.4 years, and 60.6% were women. Two patients (6.1%) had previously received systemic chemotherapy. Most (64.6%) were PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative, and most (60.6%) were BRAF/RAS/NF1 wild type.

The patients received axitinib at 5 mg twice daily plus toripalimab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal.

As of May 2, 2020, the overall response rate was 48.5%. There were 15 partial responses and 1 complete response. The median duration of response was 13.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 7.5 months, and the median overall survival was 20.7 months.

Progression-free and overall survival were numerically higher in PD-L1-positive subjects and those with higher tumor mutation burdens. An expression profile of 12 genes related to inflammation and angiogenesis showed a significant correlation with response. This might help identify patients most likely to respond to the combination, but further validation is needed, Dr. Guo said.

A total of 32 subjects (97%) have had a treatment-related adverse event, including 13 (39.4%) with grade 3-5 events. The most common of these were proteinuria, hypertension, and neutropenia (all 9.1%).

“So does this study address the unmet need? In many ways, yes,” said Ryan Sullivan, MD, an assistant professor of hematology/oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and the discussant on Dr. Guo’s presentation.

“However, the data to date [don’t] mean we should be treating all of our mucosal melanoma patients with axitinib plus an anti-PD-1 antibody. There needs to be randomized data, but I would describe this data as very encouraging,” he said.

The study was funded by the maker of toripalimab, Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Guo disclosed relationships with Shanghai Junshi Bioscience and Pfizer, maker of axitinib. Other investigators are employed by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Dr. Sullivan reported institutional research funding from Pfizer.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Guo J et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10007.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used for a variety of advanced malignancies, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD1) targeted therapies, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are improving patient survival. This class of immunotherapy is revolutionary but is associated with autoimmune adverse effects. A rare but increasingly reported adverse effect of anti-PD1 therapy is bullous pemphigoid (BP), an autoimmune blistering disease directed against BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 in the basement membrane of the epidermis. Lopez et al¹ reported that development of BP leads to discontinuation of immunotherapy in more than 70% of patients.

High clinical suspicion, early diagnosis, and proper management of immunotherapy-related BP are imperative for keeping patients on life-prolonging treatment. We present 3 cases of BP secondary to anti-PD1 immunotherapy in patients with melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer to highlight the diagnosis and treatment of BP as well as emphasize the importance of the dermatologist in the care of patients with immunotherapy-related skin disease.

Case Reports

Patient 1
​​​​​​​A 72-year-old woman with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma from an unknown primary site presented with intensely pruritic papules on the back, chest, and extremities of 4 months’ duration. She described her symptoms as insidious in onset and refractory to clobetasol ointment, oral diphenhydramine, and over-the-counter anti-itch creams. The patient had been treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg/d but was switched to pembrolizumab when the disease progressed. After 8 months, she had a complete radiologic response to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, which was discontinued in favor of observation 3 months prior to presentation to dermatology.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable erythematous, excoriated, 2- to 4-mm, red papules diffusely scattered on the upper back, chest, abdomen, and thighs, with one 8×4-mm vesicle on the right side of the upper back (Figure 1). Discrete areas of depigmented macules, consistent with vitiligo, coalesced into patches on the legs, thighs, arms, and back. The patient was started on a 3-week oral prednisone taper for symptom relief. A hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained punch biopsy of the back revealed a subepidermal split with eosinophils and a dense eosinophilic infiltrate in the dermis (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) studies from a specimen adjacent to the biopsy collected for H&E staining showed linear deposition of IgA, IgG, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 3). Histologic findings were consistent with BP.

The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and clobetasol ointment 0.05% once daily to supplement the prednisone taper. At 3-week follow-up, she reported pruritus and a few erythematous macules but no new bullae. At 12 weeks, some papules persisted; however, the patient was averse to using systemic agents and decided that symptoms were adequately controlled with clobetasol ointment and oral doxycycline.

Because the patient currently remains in clinical and radiologic remission, anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been restarted but remain an option for the future if disease recurs

Six months prior to presenting to dermatology, the patient underwent immunotherapy with 4 cycles of ipilimumab 200 mg intravenous (IV) and nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, receiving ipilimumab during the first cycle only because of a lack of availability at the pharmacy. He then received nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy. After the second dose of nivolumab maintenance therapy, however, he developed generalized bullae and pruritus. Dermatology was consulted during an oncology appointment, and his oncologist decided to hold nivolumab.

Physical examination revealed generalized tense and eroded bullae covering more than 50% of the body surface area and affecting the scalp, arms, legs, torso, and buttocks. Two punch biopsies were obtained. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a subepidermal split with predominantly eosinophils and scattered neutrophils. Direct immunofluorescence studies showed linear deposition of IgG, IgA, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction, consistent with BP.

The patient’s BP was difficult to control, requiring several hospital admissions for wound care, high-dose systemic steroids, and initiation of mycophenolate mofetil. After 4 months of waxing and waning symptoms, the BP was controlled with mycophenolate mofetil 1500 mg/d; clobetasol ointment 0.05%; and diphenhydramine for pruritus. Due to the prolonged recovery and severity of BP, the patient’s oncologist deemed that he was not a candidate for future immunotherapy.

Patient 3
A 68-year-old man with PD1-negative, metastatic, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the lung presented to dermatology with a pruritic rash of 3 weeks’ duration. He had been receiving nivolumab for 2 years after disease progressed on prior chemotherapies and experienced several grade 1 or grade 2 nivolumab-induced autoimmune reactions including thyroiditis, dermatitis, and nephritis, for which he was taking prednisone 5 mg/d for suppression.

Physical examination revealed psoriasiform pink plaques on the arms, chest, and legs. The differential diagnosis at the time favored psoriasiform dermatitis over lichenoid dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed psoriasiform dermatitis. The patient was prescribed fluocinonide ointment 0.05% daily. His plaques improved with topical steroids.

The patient returned approximately 1 month later with a report of a new blistering rash on the legs. Physical examination revealed interval improvement of the psoriasiform plaques on the scalp, torso, and extremities, but tense bullae were seen on the thighs, with surrounding superficial erosions at sites of recent bullae. Punch biopsies of the skin for H&E staining and DIF showed BP.

Prednisone was increased to 50 mg/d for a 3-week taper. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started. The patient’s skin disease continued to be difficult to control with therapy; nivolumab was held by his oncologist.

Comment

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade represents a successful application of immune recognition to treat metastatic cancers, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Programmed cell death 1 downregulates T-cell immune function through blocking interaction with its ligand, programmed death ligand 1. Inhibiting this brake on the immune system permits T cells to attack malignant cells.

Anti-PD1 targeted therapies improve survival in solid and hematologic malignancies, with a response rate as high as 40% in melanoma.² Although these medications can prolong survival, many are associated with loss of self-tolerance and severe autoimmunelike events that can limit therapy.³ An exception is PD1-induced vitiligo, which patient 1 developed and has been associated with a better response to therapy.⁴

Anti-PD1–induced BP is a newly reported adverse effect. In its early stages, BP can be difficult to differentiate from eczematous or urticarial dermatitis.^5-8 Discontinuation of immunotherapy has been reported in more than 70% of patients who develop BP.¹ There are reports of successful treatment of BP with a course of a PD1 inhibitor,⁹ but 2 of our patients had severe BP that led to discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Consider Prescreening
Given that development of BP often leads to cessation of therapy, identifying patients at risk prior to starting an immune checkpoint inhibitor might have clinical utility. Biopsy with DIF is the gold standard for diagnosis, but serologic testing can be a useful adjunct because enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively.¹⁰ Serologic testing prior to starting therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor can provide a baseline for patients. A rise in titer, in conjunction with onset of a rash, might aid in earlier diagnosis, particularly because urticarial BP can be difficult to diagnose clinically.

Further study on the utility vs cost-benefit of these screening modalities is warranted. Their predictive utility might be limited, however, and positive serologic test results might have unanticipated consequences, such as hesitation in treating patients, thus leading to a delay in therapy or access to these medications.

Conclusion

The expanding use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is increasing survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. Adverse effects are part of the continuum of immune system stimulation, with overstimulation resulting in dermatitis; thyroiditis; pneumonitis; and less commonly hypophysitis, vitiligo, and colitis.

Rarely, immune checkpoint inhibition induces BP. Development of BP leads to discontinuation of therapy in more than half of reported cases due to lack of adequate treatment for this skin disease and its impact on quality of life. Therefore, quick diagnosis of BP in patients on immunotherapy and successful management techniques can prevent discontinuation of these lifesaving cancer therapies. For that reason, dermatologists play an important role in the management of patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used for a variety of advanced malignancies, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD1) targeted therapies, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are improving patient survival. This class of immunotherapy is revolutionary but is associated with autoimmune adverse effects. A rare but increasingly reported adverse effect of anti-PD1 therapy is bullous pemphigoid (BP), an autoimmune blistering disease directed against BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 in the basement membrane of the epidermis. Lopez et al¹ reported that development of BP leads to discontinuation of immunotherapy in more than 70% of patients.

High clinical suspicion, early diagnosis, and proper management of immunotherapy-related BP are imperative for keeping patients on life-prolonging treatment. We present 3 cases of BP secondary to anti-PD1 immunotherapy in patients with melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer to highlight the diagnosis and treatment of BP as well as emphasize the importance of the dermatologist in the care of patients with immunotherapy-related skin disease.

Case Reports

Patient 1
​​​​​​​A 72-year-old woman with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma from an unknown primary site presented with intensely pruritic papules on the back, chest, and extremities of 4 months’ duration. She described her symptoms as insidious in onset and refractory to clobetasol ointment, oral diphenhydramine, and over-the-counter anti-itch creams. The patient had been treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg/d but was switched to pembrolizumab when the disease progressed. After 8 months, she had a complete radiologic response to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, which was discontinued in favor of observation 3 months prior to presentation to dermatology.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable erythematous, excoriated, 2- to 4-mm, red papules diffusely scattered on the upper back, chest, abdomen, and thighs, with one 8×4-mm vesicle on the right side of the upper back (Figure 1). Discrete areas of depigmented macules, consistent with vitiligo, coalesced into patches on the legs, thighs, arms, and back. The patient was started on a 3-week oral prednisone taper for symptom relief. A hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained punch biopsy of the back revealed a subepidermal split with eosinophils and a dense eosinophilic infiltrate in the dermis (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) studies from a specimen adjacent to the biopsy collected for H&E staining showed linear deposition of IgA, IgG, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 3). Histologic findings were consistent with BP.

The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and clobetasol ointment 0.05% once daily to supplement the prednisone taper. At 3-week follow-up, she reported pruritus and a few erythematous macules but no new bullae. At 12 weeks, some papules persisted; however, the patient was averse to using systemic agents and decided that symptoms were adequately controlled with clobetasol ointment and oral doxycycline.

Because the patient currently remains in clinical and radiologic remission, anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been restarted but remain an option for the future if disease recurs

Six months prior to presenting to dermatology, the patient underwent immunotherapy with 4 cycles of ipilimumab 200 mg intravenous (IV) and nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, receiving ipilimumab during the first cycle only because of a lack of availability at the pharmacy. He then received nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy. After the second dose of nivolumab maintenance therapy, however, he developed generalized bullae and pruritus. Dermatology was consulted during an oncology appointment, and his oncologist decided to hold nivolumab.

Physical examination revealed generalized tense and eroded bullae covering more than 50% of the body surface area and affecting the scalp, arms, legs, torso, and buttocks. Two punch biopsies were obtained. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a subepidermal split with predominantly eosinophils and scattered neutrophils. Direct immunofluorescence studies showed linear deposition of IgG, IgA, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction, consistent with BP.

The patient’s BP was difficult to control, requiring several hospital admissions for wound care, high-dose systemic steroids, and initiation of mycophenolate mofetil. After 4 months of waxing and waning symptoms, the BP was controlled with mycophenolate mofetil 1500 mg/d; clobetasol ointment 0.05%; and diphenhydramine for pruritus. Due to the prolonged recovery and severity of BP, the patient’s oncologist deemed that he was not a candidate for future immunotherapy.

Patient 3
A 68-year-old man with PD1-negative, metastatic, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the lung presented to dermatology with a pruritic rash of 3 weeks’ duration. He had been receiving nivolumab for 2 years after disease progressed on prior chemotherapies and experienced several grade 1 or grade 2 nivolumab-induced autoimmune reactions including thyroiditis, dermatitis, and nephritis, for which he was taking prednisone 5 mg/d for suppression.

Physical examination revealed psoriasiform pink plaques on the arms, chest, and legs. The differential diagnosis at the time favored psoriasiform dermatitis over lichenoid dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed psoriasiform dermatitis. The patient was prescribed fluocinonide ointment 0.05% daily. His plaques improved with topical steroids.

The patient returned approximately 1 month later with a report of a new blistering rash on the legs. Physical examination revealed interval improvement of the psoriasiform plaques on the scalp, torso, and extremities, but tense bullae were seen on the thighs, with surrounding superficial erosions at sites of recent bullae. Punch biopsies of the skin for H&E staining and DIF showed BP.

Prednisone was increased to 50 mg/d for a 3-week taper. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started. The patient’s skin disease continued to be difficult to control with therapy; nivolumab was held by his oncologist.

Comment

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade represents a successful application of immune recognition to treat metastatic cancers, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Programmed cell death 1 downregulates T-cell immune function through blocking interaction with its ligand, programmed death ligand 1. Inhibiting this brake on the immune system permits T cells to attack malignant cells.

Anti-PD1 targeted therapies improve survival in solid and hematologic malignancies, with a response rate as high as 40% in melanoma.² Although these medications can prolong survival, many are associated with loss of self-tolerance and severe autoimmunelike events that can limit therapy.³ An exception is PD1-induced vitiligo, which patient 1 developed and has been associated with a better response to therapy.⁴

Anti-PD1–induced BP is a newly reported adverse effect. In its early stages, BP can be difficult to differentiate from eczematous or urticarial dermatitis.^5-8 Discontinuation of immunotherapy has been reported in more than 70% of patients who develop BP.¹ There are reports of successful treatment of BP with a course of a PD1 inhibitor,⁹ but 2 of our patients had severe BP that led to discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Consider Prescreening
Given that development of BP often leads to cessation of therapy, identifying patients at risk prior to starting an immune checkpoint inhibitor might have clinical utility. Biopsy with DIF is the gold standard for diagnosis, but serologic testing can be a useful adjunct because enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively.¹⁰ Serologic testing prior to starting therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor can provide a baseline for patients. A rise in titer, in conjunction with onset of a rash, might aid in earlier diagnosis, particularly because urticarial BP can be difficult to diagnose clinically.

Further study on the utility vs cost-benefit of these screening modalities is warranted. Their predictive utility might be limited, however, and positive serologic test results might have unanticipated consequences, such as hesitation in treating patients, thus leading to a delay in therapy or access to these medications.

Conclusion

The expanding use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is increasing survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. Adverse effects are part of the continuum of immune system stimulation, with overstimulation resulting in dermatitis; thyroiditis; pneumonitis; and less commonly hypophysitis, vitiligo, and colitis.

Rarely, immune checkpoint inhibition induces BP. Development of BP leads to discontinuation of therapy in more than half of reported cases due to lack of adequate treatment for this skin disease and its impact on quality of life. Therefore, quick diagnosis of BP in patients on immunotherapy and successful management techniques can prevent discontinuation of these lifesaving cancer therapies. For that reason, dermatologists play an important role in the management of patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used for a variety of advanced malignancies, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD1) targeted therapies, such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are improving patient survival. This class of immunotherapy is revolutionary but is associated with autoimmune adverse effects. A rare but increasingly reported adverse effect of anti-PD1 therapy is bullous pemphigoid (BP), an autoimmune blistering disease directed against BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 in the basement membrane of the epidermis. Lopez et al¹ reported that development of BP leads to discontinuation of immunotherapy in more than 70% of patients.

High clinical suspicion, early diagnosis, and proper management of immunotherapy-related BP are imperative for keeping patients on life-prolonging treatment. We present 3 cases of BP secondary to anti-PD1 immunotherapy in patients with melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer to highlight the diagnosis and treatment of BP as well as emphasize the importance of the dermatologist in the care of patients with immunotherapy-related skin disease.

Case Reports

Patient 1
​​​​​​​A 72-year-old woman with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma from an unknown primary site presented with intensely pruritic papules on the back, chest, and extremities of 4 months’ duration. She described her symptoms as insidious in onset and refractory to clobetasol ointment, oral diphenhydramine, and over-the-counter anti-itch creams. The patient had been treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg/d but was switched to pembrolizumab when the disease progressed. After 8 months, she had a complete radiologic response to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, which was discontinued in favor of observation 3 months prior to presentation to dermatology.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable erythematous, excoriated, 2- to 4-mm, red papules diffusely scattered on the upper back, chest, abdomen, and thighs, with one 8×4-mm vesicle on the right side of the upper back (Figure 1). Discrete areas of depigmented macules, consistent with vitiligo, coalesced into patches on the legs, thighs, arms, and back. The patient was started on a 3-week oral prednisone taper for symptom relief. A hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)–stained punch biopsy of the back revealed a subepidermal split with eosinophils and a dense eosinophilic infiltrate in the dermis (Figure 2). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) studies from a specimen adjacent to the biopsy collected for H&E staining showed linear deposition of IgA, IgG, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 3). Histologic findings were consistent with BP.

The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and clobetasol ointment 0.05% once daily to supplement the prednisone taper. At 3-week follow-up, she reported pruritus and a few erythematous macules but no new bullae. At 12 weeks, some papules persisted; however, the patient was averse to using systemic agents and decided that symptoms were adequately controlled with clobetasol ointment and oral doxycycline.

Because the patient currently remains in clinical and radiologic remission, anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been restarted but remain an option for the future if disease recurs

Six months prior to presenting to dermatology, the patient underwent immunotherapy with 4 cycles of ipilimumab 200 mg intravenous (IV) and nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks, receiving ipilimumab during the first cycle only because of a lack of availability at the pharmacy. He then received nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy. After the second dose of nivolumab maintenance therapy, however, he developed generalized bullae and pruritus. Dermatology was consulted during an oncology appointment, and his oncologist decided to hold nivolumab.

Physical examination revealed generalized tense and eroded bullae covering more than 50% of the body surface area and affecting the scalp, arms, legs, torso, and buttocks. Two punch biopsies were obtained. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a subepidermal split with predominantly eosinophils and scattered neutrophils. Direct immunofluorescence studies showed linear deposition of IgG, IgA, and C3 along the dermoepidermal junction, consistent with BP.

The patient’s BP was difficult to control, requiring several hospital admissions for wound care, high-dose systemic steroids, and initiation of mycophenolate mofetil. After 4 months of waxing and waning symptoms, the BP was controlled with mycophenolate mofetil 1500 mg/d; clobetasol ointment 0.05%; and diphenhydramine for pruritus. Due to the prolonged recovery and severity of BP, the patient’s oncologist deemed that he was not a candidate for future immunotherapy.

Patient 3
A 68-year-old man with PD1-negative, metastatic, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the lung presented to dermatology with a pruritic rash of 3 weeks’ duration. He had been receiving nivolumab for 2 years after disease progressed on prior chemotherapies and experienced several grade 1 or grade 2 nivolumab-induced autoimmune reactions including thyroiditis, dermatitis, and nephritis, for which he was taking prednisone 5 mg/d for suppression.

Physical examination revealed psoriasiform pink plaques on the arms, chest, and legs. The differential diagnosis at the time favored psoriasiform dermatitis over lichenoid dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed psoriasiform dermatitis. The patient was prescribed fluocinonide ointment 0.05% daily. His plaques improved with topical steroids.

The patient returned approximately 1 month later with a report of a new blistering rash on the legs. Physical examination revealed interval improvement of the psoriasiform plaques on the scalp, torso, and extremities, but tense bullae were seen on the thighs, with surrounding superficial erosions at sites of recent bullae. Punch biopsies of the skin for H&E staining and DIF showed BP.

Prednisone was increased to 50 mg/d for a 3-week taper. Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was started. The patient’s skin disease continued to be difficult to control with therapy; nivolumab was held by his oncologist.

Comment

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockade represents a successful application of immune recognition to treat metastatic cancers, including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Programmed cell death 1 downregulates T-cell immune function through blocking interaction with its ligand, programmed death ligand 1. Inhibiting this brake on the immune system permits T cells to attack malignant cells.

Anti-PD1 targeted therapies improve survival in solid and hematologic malignancies, with a response rate as high as 40% in melanoma.² Although these medications can prolong survival, many are associated with loss of self-tolerance and severe autoimmunelike events that can limit therapy.³ An exception is PD1-induced vitiligo, which patient 1 developed and has been associated with a better response to therapy.⁴

Anti-PD1–induced BP is a newly reported adverse effect. In its early stages, BP can be difficult to differentiate from eczematous or urticarial dermatitis.^5-8 Discontinuation of immunotherapy has been reported in more than 70% of patients who develop BP.¹ There are reports of successful treatment of BP with a course of a PD1 inhibitor,⁹ but 2 of our patients had severe BP that led to discontinuation of immunotherapy.

Consider Prescreening
Given that development of BP often leads to cessation of therapy, identifying patients at risk prior to starting an immune checkpoint inhibitor might have clinical utility. Biopsy with DIF is the gold standard for diagnosis, but serologic testing can be a useful adjunct because enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for BP antigen 1 and BP antigen 2 has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively.¹⁰ Serologic testing prior to starting therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor can provide a baseline for patients. A rise in titer, in conjunction with onset of a rash, might aid in earlier diagnosis, particularly because urticarial BP can be difficult to diagnose clinically.

Further study on the utility vs cost-benefit of these screening modalities is warranted. Their predictive utility might be limited, however, and positive serologic test results might have unanticipated consequences, such as hesitation in treating patients, thus leading to a delay in therapy or access to these medications.

Conclusion

The expanding use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is increasing survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. Adverse effects are part of the continuum of immune system stimulation, with overstimulation resulting in dermatitis; thyroiditis; pneumonitis; and less commonly hypophysitis, vitiligo, and colitis.

Rarely, immune checkpoint inhibition induces BP. Development of BP leads to discontinuation of therapy in more than half of reported cases due to lack of adequate treatment for this skin disease and its impact on quality of life. Therefore, quick diagnosis of BP in patients on immunotherapy and successful management techniques can prevent discontinuation of these lifesaving cancer therapies. For that reason, dermatologists play an important role in the management of patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer.

Low-dose ipilimumab plus pembrolizumab given immediately after progression on a PD-1 antibody alone demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase 2 study, according to an investigator.

The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.

“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
 

Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity

“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.

Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.

The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.

“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”

“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”

However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

Patients and treatment

The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.

Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.

The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.

Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.

The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
 

Response details

There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.

“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”

“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”

“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
 

Survival and safety

The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.

“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.

Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.

The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.

This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.

Low-dose ipilimumab plus pembrolizumab given immediately after progression on a PD-1 antibody alone demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase 2 study, according to an investigator.

The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.

“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
 

Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity

“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.

Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.

The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.

“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”

“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”

However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

Patients and treatment

The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.

Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.

The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.

Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.

The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
 

Response details

There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.

“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”

“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”

“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
 

Survival and safety

The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.

“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.

Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.

The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.

This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.

Low-dose ipilimumab plus pembrolizumab given immediately after progression on a PD-1 antibody alone demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase 2 study, according to an investigator.

The investigator, Daniel Olson, MD, of the University of Chicago, presented the study results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg generated a response rate of 27%, Dr. Olson reported. This is higher than the 15% response rate observed in historical controls who received ipilimumab alone after primary PD-1 failure (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20[9]:1239-1251), he noted.

“Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 27% of patients” in the current trial, Dr. Olson added. He said this compares favorably to ipilimumab given at 3 mg/kg in combination with a PD-1 antibody first line, which produced a grade 3/4 adverse event rate of 59% in a prior trial (N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1345-1356).
 

Preserving efficacy while limiting toxicity

“The combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade is an incredibly potent combination, not only in melanoma, but across cancer types,” said Douglas Johnson, MD, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the discussant on Dr. Olson’s presentation.

Dr. Johnson noted, however, that the combination produces a high incidence of serious immune-related adverse events.

The goal of recent research has been finding a way to preserve the efficacy but limit the toxicity. The tack taken in the current study was to wait until primary PD-1 antibody failure to initiate the combination, then do so with an ipilimumab dose lower than the standard 3 mg/kg used in melanoma.

“The response rate was quite good,” Dr. Johnson said. “I think these are very favorable results.”

“It does seem like the sequential approach does decrease the total number of toxicities compared to using both agents in the front line,” he added. “Should we use 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg [ipilimumab] in this sort of sequential-type approach? I would say, at this point, they’re still both viable.”

However, for “patients who really need an upfront response ... we might favor giving combination upfront,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

Patients and treatment

The trial (NCT02743819) enrolled 70 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on a PD-1 antibody after a median treatment duration of 4.8 months. Patients had no prior exposure to a CTLA4 antibody.

Prior to entry, 86% of subjects had been treated with a PD-1 antibody alone, 14% with a PD-1 antibody in a non-CTLA4 antibody combination, and 7% with BRAF-directed therapy prior to PD-1 antibody treatment.

The patients’ median age was 64 years, and 67% were men. Overall, 89% of subjects had cutaneous melanoma, 10% acral melanoma, and 1% mucosal melanoma.

Half of patients had stage IV M1c or M1d disease. Ten percent had treated brain metastases at baseline, 24% had liver metastases, 28% had baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper limit of normal, and 29% had BRAF mutations.

The patients were treated with ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. They received pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.
 

Response details

There were 61 subjects evaluable for response, but all 70 patients were considered in the response rate. There were 5 complete responses and 14 partial responses, for a response rate of 27% (19/70). The median duration of response was 18.5 months.

“We did observe a substantially higher response rate among the PD-L1 negative subgroup, as compared to PD-L1-positive,” Dr. Olson said. “The responses observed in some of these higher-risk patients, and especially the responses we saw among many PD-L1-negative tumors, suggested that we might be capturing atypical responders with [pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab].”

“Most responses occurred in non-T-cell-inflamed or intermediate tumors,” Dr. Olson added. “Our trial enriched for non-T-cell inflamed tumor phenotypes, where we then observe[d] responses.”

“These patients responded across BRAF mutation status,” Dr. Johnson noted. “Patients who had elevated LDH, those who had liver metastases, brain metastases, also had comparable response rates to those lacking those more adverse prognostic features.”
 

Survival and safety

The median progression-free survival was 5 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months.

“The multiple durable responses we observed did translate into long-term survival for some patients,” Dr. Olson said.

Eighteen subjects (26%) had grade 3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment. The most common were colitis/diarrhea in 9%, rash in 6%, and ALT/AST elevations in 6%. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a lipase elevation.

The median time to onset of high-grade adverse events was 55 days, which would fall between cycles 2 and 3 of ipilimumab “and is similar to the experience with [ipilimumab] in the front-line setting,” Dr. Olson said.

This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck. Dr. Olson had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties to the company. Dr. Johnson is an advisor for Merck.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Olson D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 10004.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of melanoma was increased among patients taking biologics for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, compared with biologic-naive patients on conventional systemic therapy, but the association was not statistically significant in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

The studies included in the analysis, however, had limitations, including a lack of those comparing biologic and conventional systemic therapy in psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to Shamarke Esse, MRes, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. “We advocate for more large, well-designed studies of this issue to be performed to help improve certainty” regarding this association, they wrote.

Previous studies that have found an increased risk of melanoma in patients on biologics for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and IBD have “typically used the general population as the comparator,” they noted. There is a large amount of evidence that has established short-term efficacy and safety of biologics, compared with conventional systemic treatments, but concerns about longer-term cancer risk associated with biologics remains a concern. Moreover, they added, “melanoma is a highly immunogenic skin cancer and therefore of concern to patients treated with TNFIs [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] because melanoma risk increases with suppression of the immune system and TNF-alpha plays an important role in the immune surveillance of tumors.12,13

In their review, the researchers identified seven cohort studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases published between January 1995 and February 2019 that evaluated melanoma risk in about 34,000 patients receiving biologics and 135,370 patients who had never been treated with biologics, and were receiving conventional systemic therapy for psoriasis, RA, or IBD. Of these, four studies were in patients with RA, two studies were in patients with IBD, and a single study was in patients with psoriasis. Six studies examined patients taking TNF inhibitors, but only one of six studies had information on specific TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with RA. One study evaluated abatacept and rituximab in RA patients.

The researchers analyzed the pooled relative risk across all studies. Compared with patients who received conventional systemic therapy, there was a nonsignificant association with risk of melanoma in patients with psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-4.09), RA (pooled relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), and IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40).

Among RA patients who received TNF inhibitors only, there was a slightly elevated nonsignificant risk of melanoma (pRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81-1.43). Patients receiving rituximab had a pRR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.38-1.39), and patients taking abatacept had a pRR of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.66-3.09), compared with RA patients receiving conventional systemic therapy. When excluding two major studies in the RA subgroup of patients in a sensitivity analysis, pooled risk estimates varied from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-1.18) to 1.95 (95% CI, 1.16- 3.30). There were no significant between-study heterogeneity or publication bias among the IBD and RA studies.

Mr. Esse and colleagues acknowledged the small number of IBD and psoriasis studies in the meta-analysis, which could affect pooled risk estimates. “Any future update of our study through the inclusion of newly published studies may produce significantly different pooled risk estimates than those reported in our meta-analysis,” they said. In addition, the use of health insurance databases, lack of risk factors for melanoma, and inconsistent information about treatment duration for patients receiving conventional systemic therapy were also limitations.

“Prospective cohort studies using an active comparator, new-user study design providing detailed information on treatment history, concomitant treatments, biologic and conventional systemic treatment duration, recreational and treatment-related UV exposure, skin color, and date of melanoma diagnosis are required to help improve certainty. These studies would also need to account for key risk factors and the latency period of melanoma,” the researchers said.

Mr. Esse disclosed being funded by a PhD studentship from the Psoriasis Association. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, and Novartis outside the study; another disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from those and several other pharmaceutical companies during the study, and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work; the fourth author had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Esse S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 20;e201300.

The risk of melanoma was increased among patients taking biologics for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, compared with biologic-naive patients on conventional systemic therapy, but the association was not statistically significant in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

The studies included in the analysis, however, had limitations, including a lack of those comparing biologic and conventional systemic therapy in psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to Shamarke Esse, MRes, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. “We advocate for more large, well-designed studies of this issue to be performed to help improve certainty” regarding this association, they wrote.

Previous studies that have found an increased risk of melanoma in patients on biologics for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and IBD have “typically used the general population as the comparator,” they noted. There is a large amount of evidence that has established short-term efficacy and safety of biologics, compared with conventional systemic treatments, but concerns about longer-term cancer risk associated with biologics remains a concern. Moreover, they added, “melanoma is a highly immunogenic skin cancer and therefore of concern to patients treated with TNFIs [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] because melanoma risk increases with suppression of the immune system and TNF-alpha plays an important role in the immune surveillance of tumors.12,13

In their review, the researchers identified seven cohort studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases published between January 1995 and February 2019 that evaluated melanoma risk in about 34,000 patients receiving biologics and 135,370 patients who had never been treated with biologics, and were receiving conventional systemic therapy for psoriasis, RA, or IBD. Of these, four studies were in patients with RA, two studies were in patients with IBD, and a single study was in patients with psoriasis. Six studies examined patients taking TNF inhibitors, but only one of six studies had information on specific TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with RA. One study evaluated abatacept and rituximab in RA patients.

The researchers analyzed the pooled relative risk across all studies. Compared with patients who received conventional systemic therapy, there was a nonsignificant association with risk of melanoma in patients with psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-4.09), RA (pooled relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), and IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40).

Among RA patients who received TNF inhibitors only, there was a slightly elevated nonsignificant risk of melanoma (pRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81-1.43). Patients receiving rituximab had a pRR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.38-1.39), and patients taking abatacept had a pRR of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.66-3.09), compared with RA patients receiving conventional systemic therapy. When excluding two major studies in the RA subgroup of patients in a sensitivity analysis, pooled risk estimates varied from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-1.18) to 1.95 (95% CI, 1.16- 3.30). There were no significant between-study heterogeneity or publication bias among the IBD and RA studies.

Mr. Esse and colleagues acknowledged the small number of IBD and psoriasis studies in the meta-analysis, which could affect pooled risk estimates. “Any future update of our study through the inclusion of newly published studies may produce significantly different pooled risk estimates than those reported in our meta-analysis,” they said. In addition, the use of health insurance databases, lack of risk factors for melanoma, and inconsistent information about treatment duration for patients receiving conventional systemic therapy were also limitations.

“Prospective cohort studies using an active comparator, new-user study design providing detailed information on treatment history, concomitant treatments, biologic and conventional systemic treatment duration, recreational and treatment-related UV exposure, skin color, and date of melanoma diagnosis are required to help improve certainty. These studies would also need to account for key risk factors and the latency period of melanoma,” the researchers said.

Mr. Esse disclosed being funded by a PhD studentship from the Psoriasis Association. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, and Novartis outside the study; another disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from those and several other pharmaceutical companies during the study, and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work; the fourth author had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Esse S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 20;e201300.

The risk of melanoma was increased among patients taking biologics for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, compared with biologic-naive patients on conventional systemic therapy, but the association was not statistically significant in a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

The studies included in the analysis, however, had limitations, including a lack of those comparing biologic and conventional systemic therapy in psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to Shamarke Esse, MRes, of the division of musculoskeletal and dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester (England) and colleagues. “We advocate for more large, well-designed studies of this issue to be performed to help improve certainty” regarding this association, they wrote.

Previous studies that have found an increased risk of melanoma in patients on biologics for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and IBD have “typically used the general population as the comparator,” they noted. There is a large amount of evidence that has established short-term efficacy and safety of biologics, compared with conventional systemic treatments, but concerns about longer-term cancer risk associated with biologics remains a concern. Moreover, they added, “melanoma is a highly immunogenic skin cancer and therefore of concern to patients treated with TNFIs [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors] because melanoma risk increases with suppression of the immune system and TNF-alpha plays an important role in the immune surveillance of tumors.12,13

In their review, the researchers identified seven cohort studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases published between January 1995 and February 2019 that evaluated melanoma risk in about 34,000 patients receiving biologics and 135,370 patients who had never been treated with biologics, and were receiving conventional systemic therapy for psoriasis, RA, or IBD. Of these, four studies were in patients with RA, two studies were in patients with IBD, and a single study was in patients with psoriasis. Six studies examined patients taking TNF inhibitors, but only one of six studies had information on specific TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with RA. One study evaluated abatacept and rituximab in RA patients.

The researchers analyzed the pooled relative risk across all studies. Compared with patients who received conventional systemic therapy, there was a nonsignificant association with risk of melanoma in patients with psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-4.09), RA (pooled relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), and IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40).

Among RA patients who received TNF inhibitors only, there was a slightly elevated nonsignificant risk of melanoma (pRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81-1.43). Patients receiving rituximab had a pRR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.38-1.39), and patients taking abatacept had a pRR of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.66-3.09), compared with RA patients receiving conventional systemic therapy. When excluding two major studies in the RA subgroup of patients in a sensitivity analysis, pooled risk estimates varied from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69-1.18) to 1.95 (95% CI, 1.16- 3.30). There were no significant between-study heterogeneity or publication bias among the IBD and RA studies.

Mr. Esse and colleagues acknowledged the small number of IBD and psoriasis studies in the meta-analysis, which could affect pooled risk estimates. “Any future update of our study through the inclusion of newly published studies may produce significantly different pooled risk estimates than those reported in our meta-analysis,” they said. In addition, the use of health insurance databases, lack of risk factors for melanoma, and inconsistent information about treatment duration for patients receiving conventional systemic therapy were also limitations.

“Prospective cohort studies using an active comparator, new-user study design providing detailed information on treatment history, concomitant treatments, biologic and conventional systemic treatment duration, recreational and treatment-related UV exposure, skin color, and date of melanoma diagnosis are required to help improve certainty. These studies would also need to account for key risk factors and the latency period of melanoma,” the researchers said.

Mr. Esse disclosed being funded by a PhD studentship from the Psoriasis Association. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, and Novartis outside the study; another disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from those and several other pharmaceutical companies during the study, and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside of the submitted work; the fourth author had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Esse S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 20;e201300.