Melanoma: Immune checkpoints

Similar documents
III Sessione I risultati clinici

Update on Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma. Ragini Kudchadkar, MD Assistant Professor Winship Cancer Institute Emory University Sea Island 2017

Melanoma: From Chemotherapy to Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy. What every patient needs to know. James Larkin

6/7/16. Melanoma. Updates on immune checkpoint therapies. Molecularly targeted therapies. FDA approval for talimogene laherparepvec (T- VEC)

Immunotherapy of Melanoma Sanjiv S. Agarwala, MD

Melanoma. Il parere dell esperto. V. Ferraresi. Divisione di Oncologia Medica 1

CheckMate 012: Safety and Efficacy of First Line Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

PTAC meeting held on 5 & 6 May (minutes for web publishing)

Kombination von Checkpointinhibitoren beim malignen Melanom

Medical Treatment for Melanoma Sanjiv S. Agarwala, MD

New Systemic Therapies in Advanced Melanoma

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Melanoma. Marlana Orloff, MD Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

Immunotherapy in the Adjuvant Setting for Melanoma: What You Need to Know

Immunotherapy in Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: Where Do We Stand? Sanjiv S. Agarwala, MD St. Luke s Cancer Center Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Overview: Immunotherapy in CNS Metastases

What we learned from immunotherapy in the past years

Immunotherapy, an exciting era!!

MELANOMA METASTASICO: NUEVAS COMBINACIONES. Dr Ana Arance MD PhD Oncología Médica Hospital Clínic Barcelona

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Brain Metastases

Immunotherapies in melanoma: regulatory perspective. Jorge Camarero (AEMPS)

New paradigms for treating metastatic melanoma

The Current Status of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Arvin Yang, MD PhD Oncology Global Clinical Research Bristol-Myers Squibb

Summary... 2 MELANOMA AND OTHER SKIN TUMOURS... 3

Melanoma: Therapeutic Progress and the Improvements Continue

Immunotherapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma. James Larkin

Current Trends in Melanoma Theresa Medina, MD UCD Cutaneous Oncology

Índice. Melanoma Cáncer de Pulmón Otros tumores

Immunotherapy for Melanoma. Caroline Robert, MD, PhD Gustave Roussy and Université Paris Sud Villejuif, France

Immunoterapia e melanoma maligno metastatico: siamo partiti da li. Vanna Chiarion Sileni Istituto Oncologico Veneto

Immunotherapy for Melanoma. Michael Postow, MD Melanoma and Immunotherapeutics Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

General Information, efficacy and safety data

Assessment of Efficacy and Immune Related RECIST criteria

Terapia Immunomodulante e Target Therapies nel Trattamento del Melanoma Metastatico

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Brain Metastases

Luana Calabrò Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori SIENA, ITALY

Conversations in Oncology. November Kerry Hotel Pudong, Shanghai China

Immuno-Oncologia: verso una immunoterapia di precisione?

Checkpoint regulators a new class of cancer immunotherapeutics. Dr Oliver Klein Medical Oncologist ONJCC Austin Health

Options for first-line cisplatin-eligible patients

Weitere Kombinationspartner der Immunotherapie

Reflex Testing Guidelines for Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Metastatic NSCLC: Expanding Role of Immunotherapy. Evan W. Alley, MD, PhD Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Presbyterian

NSCLC: immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Paolo Bironzo Oncologia Polmonare AOU S. Luigi Gonzaga Orbassano (To)

Management of Brain Metastases Sanjiv S. Agarwala, MD

IMMUNOTHERAPY FOR GASTROINTESTINAL CANCERS

MELANOMA: THE BEST OF THE YEAR Dott.ssa Silvia Quadrini UOC Oncologia ASL Frosinone

Immunotherapy for Breast Cancer. Aurelio B. Castrellon Medical Oncology Memorial Healthcare System

Glioblastoma and CNS tumors

Challenges in Distinguishing Clinical Signals to Support Development Decisions: Case Studies

Out of 129 patients with NSCLC treated with Nivolumab in a phase I trial, the OS rate at 5-y was about 16 %, clearly higher than historical rates.

Immunotherapy for Metastatic Malignant Melanoma. Dr Daniel A Vorobiof Sandton Oncology Centre Johannesburg

II sessione. Immunoterapia oltre la prima linea. Alessandro Tuzi ASST Sette Laghi, Varese

Immuno-Oncology Applications

Immunotherapy in the clinic. Lung Cancer. Marga Majem 20 octubre 2017

New Therapeutic Approaches to Malignant Melanoma

Review of immunotherapy in melanoma

Nivolumab: esperienze italiane nel carcinoma polmonare avanzato

Melanoma Clinical Trials and Real World Experience

Checkpoint Regulators Cancer Immunotherapy takes centre stage. Dr Oliver Klein Department of Medical Oncology 02 May 2015

Immunotherapy for NSCLC: Current State of the Art and Future Directions. H. Jack West, MD Swedish Cancer Institute Seattle, Washington, United States

Highlights STOMACH CANCER

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Lung Cancer William N. William Jr.

Ipilimumab ASCO Data Review and Discussion Webcast. Monday, June 2, 2008

Renal Cell Carcinoma: Systemic Therapy Progress and Promise

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancers. Robert F. Taylor, MD Aurora Health Care

ASCO 2014: The Future is Here. What I Will Talk About. George W. Sledge MD Stanford University School of Medicine

Nuovi approcci immunoterapici nel trattamento del Melanoma: Background immunologico.

Unmet Need Mucosal and Uveal Melanoma

Il ruolo di PD-L1 (42%) tra la prima e la seconda linea di trattamento

Immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

Innovations in Immunotherapy - Melanoma. Systemic Therapies October 27, 2018 Charles L. Bane, MD

Advances in Systemic Therapy Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Dr ZEE Ying Kiat HASLD Conference Ho Chi Minh City, 18 December 2016

Immune checkpoint inhibition in melanoma. John Haanen

Presentation Number: LBA18_PR. Lecture Time: 09:15-09:27. Speakers: Heinz-Josef J. Lenz (Los Angeles, US) Background

New Therapies in HCC Bruno Sangro Clínica Universidad de Navarra. IdISNA. CIBERehd. Pamplona, Spain

Inmunoterapia en cáncer renal metastásico: redefiniendo el tratamiento de segunda línea

IMMUNOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF CERVIX CANCER

LA QUARTA ARMA CONTRO IL CANCRO

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancers. Barbara Burtness, MD Yale University

Priming the Immune System to Kill Cancer and Reverse Tolerance. Dr. Diwakar Davar Assistant Professor, Melanoma and Phase I Therapeutics

Principles and Application of Immunotherapy for Cancer: Advanced NSCLC

MEETING SUMMARY ESMO 2018, Munich, Germany. Dr. Jenny Seligmann University of Leeds, UK HIGHLIGHTS ON COLORECTAL CANCER

ASCO 2014 Highlights*

Immunotherapy Treatment Developments in Medical Oncology

THE FUTURE OF IMMUNOTHERAPY IN COLORECTAL CANCER. Prof. Dr. Hans Prenen, MD, PhD Oncology Department University Hospital Antwerp, Belgium

Brain mets under I.O.

Principles and Application of Immunotherapy for Cancer: Advanced Melanoma

Haemato-Oncology ESMO PRECEPTORSHIP PROGRAMME IMMUNO-ONCOLOGY. Development and clinical experience Monique Minnema, hematologist

IMMUNOTARGET THERAPY: ASPETTI GENERALI

THE ROLE OF TARGETED THERAPY AND IMMUNOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF ADVANCED CERVIX CANCER

Treatment and management of advanced melanoma: Paul B. Chapman, MD Melanoma Clinical Director, Melanoma and Immunotherapeutics Service MSKCC

A Case Study: Ipilimumab in Pre-treated Metastatic Melanoma

Optimizing Immunotherapy New Approaches, Biomarkers, Sequences and Combinations Immunotherapy in the clinic Melanoma

National Horizon Scanning Centre. Ipilimumab (MDX-010) for unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma - first or second line treatment

Harnessing the immune system to combat cancer. Gary Middleton, University of Birmingham

Immunotherapy for Genitourinary Cancers

Targeted/Immunotherapy & Molecular Profiling State-of-the-art in Cancer Care

WHY LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL DATA TO ENRICH THE KAPLAN-MEIER CURVES? Immuno-oncology, only an example

IMMUNOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF CERVIX CANCER. Linda Mileshkin, Medical Oncologist Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne Australia

Melanoma- Fighting the Dark Side

Transcription:

ESMO Preceptorship Programme Immuno-Oncology Siena, July 04-05, 2016 Melanoma: Immune checkpoints Michele Maio Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy-Department of Oncology University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori SIENA, ITALY

Melanoma as a tool for cancer research Tissue samples readily accessible Adaptable to tissue culture Amenable to testing of novel therapies

T-cell Checkpoint and Co-stimulatory Pathways APC/ Tumor T cell CD40 CD40L Activation CD137L OX40L B7-2 (CD86) CD137 OX40 CD28 Activation Activation Activation These pathways can be activated via I-O agents to counteract tumor-mediated inhibition B7-1 (CD80) CTLA-4 Inhibition PD-L1 PD-L2 PD-1 B7-1 (CD80) Inhibition Inhibition LAG-3 Inhibition MHC TCR These pathways can be blocked via I-O agents to counteract tumormediated inhibition Adapted from Pardoll DM 2012. APC=antigen-presenting cell; CTLA-4=cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4; LAG-3=lymphocyte activation gene-3; MHC=major histocompatibility complex; PD-1=programmed death-1; PD-L1=PD ligand-1; PD-L2=PD ligand-2; TCR=T-cell receptor. Pardoll DM. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:252-264. 3

Kaplan-Meier Plot of Overall Survival BMS CA184024 Maio M et al., J Clin Oncol, 2015

Cancer-cell directed vs immune-system directed cancer treatment: a matter of time T I M E Chemotherapy/ target therapy Tumour cell destruction Immunotherapy Immune system activation Tumour cell destruction

Response Patterns Change from baseline SPD (%) Change from baseline SPD (%) 50 25 0-25 -50-75 -100-125 50 25 0-25 -50-75 -100-125 Response in baseline lesions 5.2 months PD PR CR -9-3 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 Relative week from first dose date 'Stable disease' with slow, steady decline in total tumor volume 9 months -9-3 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 Relative week from first dose date 2,894 2,556 2,218 1,881 1,543 1,206 868 530 193-145 -482 SPD (mm 2 ) 2,810 2,482 2,154 1,826 1,498 1,171 843 515 187-140 -468 Total tumor volume Index lesions New lesions Ipilimumab dosing SPD = Sum of the Product of the perpendicular Diameters (a measure of tumor volume) SPD (mm 2 ) Change from baseline SPD (%) Change from baseline SPD (%) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0-25 -50-75 -100-125 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Response after initial increase in total tumor volume 6 months -9-3 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 Relative week from first dose date -9-3 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 51 Relative week from first dose date 19,373 17,242 15,111 12,980 10,849 8,718 6,587 4,456 2,325 194-1,937 Response in index and new lesions At or after the appearance of new lesions 9.4 months 1,272 1,124 975 827 678 530 382 233 85-64 -212 SPD (mm 2 ) SPD (mm 2 ) Harmankaya et al. Poster presentation ESMO 2008 #784P

Clin Cancer Res 2009

True tumor progressions Pseudoprogressions Tumor flares

IPILIMUMAB PATTERN OF RESPONSE Baseline W 12 W 24 Baseline W 12 PD W 24 SD Induction Phase IPI 10mg/Kg ev d1, Q3ws x 4 Maintenance Phase IPI 10mg/Kg ev d1, Q12ws Di Giacomo AM., Cancer Immunol Immunother., 2011

Histopathology of cutaneous biopsy at week 56 Haematoxylin and eosin staining depicting strong regressive changes both in flat and nodular areas of the tumor biopsy; neoplastic melanocytes were virtually absent throughout the whole lesion. Di Giacomo AM., Cancer Immunol Immunother., 2011

Histopathology of liver biopsy at week 102 Histological examination of a liver melanoma mts showed massive necrosis of melanocytes. On left, well-preserved fibroblats with rare lymphocytes inside a fibrotic septum, and melanophages are recognizable (original magnification 200x) Di Giacomo AM., Cancer Immunol Immunother., 2011

IPILIMUMAB PATTERN OF RESPONSE W1R (W152) W12 R W60 R PD PR CR CR CR CR Reinduction Phase IPI 3mg/Kg iv d1, Q3 ws x4 Follow-up

Baseline w24

CD8+ Granzyme+ Pre-therapy

CLINICAL CASE W20 60-year-old Female Affected by Stage III Melanoma Inflammatory flares -Pseudo-progression INDUCTION Adjuvant melanoma trial BMS029/EORTC 18071 MAINTENANCE TA W12 W24 W36 W48 W60 W72 W80 W18 W18 W24 Inflammatory flares -Pseudo-progression Early appearance following adjuvant ipi treatment (Protocol. BMS CA 184029) early induction phase, up to week 12 enlarged lymph nodes *FNA left palatine tonsil: normal

W60 CLINICAL CASE 60-year-old Female Affected by Stage III Melanoma Inflammatory flares -Pseudo-progression W60 W66 At W60 evidence of a Single pulmonary lesion (37x34mm), with the morphologic feature of an inflammatory lesion. According with the current recommendations we have skipped the scheduled dose (W60) and we have obtained a F/U scan after 6 weeks. W66

CLINICAL CASE 60-year-old Female Affected by Stage III Melanoma Inflammatory flares -Pseudo-progression INDUCTION MAINTENANCE Current Recommendations W24 W36 W48 W60 TA W72 W80 W72 If F/U scan stable or resolved or biopsy negative for tumor: scan as scheduled at next time point maintain treatment per protocol schedule

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Provide Durable Longterm Survival for Patients with Advanced Melanoma Overall Survival (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 N=210 N=107 IPI (Pooled analysis) 1 NIVO Monotherapy (Phase 1 CA209-003) 2 NIVO Monotherapy (Phase 3 Checkmate 066) 3 N=1,861 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years 1. Schadendorf et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1889-1894; 2. Current analysis; 3. Poster presentation by Dr. Victoria Atkinson at SMR 2015 International Congress. 18

Time to and Durability of Response *At the time of the last follow-up 1. Robert C, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:320 323. 2. Long GV, et al. Presented at SMR 2014.

Tumor Burden Change Over Time TBP >30% (n = 24) 100 Change From Baseline (%) 75 50 25 0-25 -50-75 Before Progression After Progression First Occurrence of New Lesion Progression CR or PR Patients Still on Treatment -100 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 Time Since First Study Dosing Date (Weeks) CR = complete response; PR = partial response 20

OS by PD-L1 Expression Level (5%) NIVO-treated patients continued to have improved OS compared with DTIC, regardless of PD-L1 expression 2-year OS rate for patients who received NIVO was 68.3% in those with 5% PD-L1 expression and 54.2% with <5% expression; in the DTIC arm, 2-year rates were 25.4% and 33.2% for patients with PD-L1 expression 5% and <5%, respectively

KEYNOTE 001

[TITLE] Presented By Padmanee Sharma, MD, PhD at 2013 ASCO Annual Meeting

CA209-067: Study Design Randomized, double-blind, phase III study to compare NIVO+IPI or NIVO alone to IPI alone N = 314 NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses then NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W Unresectable or Metatastic Melanoma Previously untreated 945 patients Randomize 1:1:1 Stratify by: Tumor PD-L1 expression a BRAF mutation status AJCC M stage N = 316 NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI-matched placebo Treat until progression b or unacceptable toxicity N = 315 IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + NIVO-matched placebo ASCO 2016 a Verified PD-L1 assay with 5% expression level was used for the stratification of patients; validated PD-L1 assay was used for efficacy analyses b Patients could have been treated beyond progression under protocol-defined circumstances

Checkmate 067 Progression-Free Survival (Intent-to-Treat Population) Progression-free Percentage Survival of PFS (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NIVO+IPI NIVO IPI 49% 42% 18% 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 PFS per Investigator (months) NIVO + IPI (N = 314) NIVO (N = 316) IPI (N = 315) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 11.5 (8.9, 16.7) 6.9 (4.3, 9.5) 2.9 (2.8, 3.4) HR (99.5% CI) vs. IPI 0.42 (0.31, 0.57) a 0.55 (0.43, 0.76) a -- HR (95% CI) vs. NIVO 0.76 (0.60, 0.92) b -- -- 46% 39% 14% a Stratified log-rank P<0.00001 vs. IPI b Exploratory endpoint Number of patients at risk: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab Nivolumab Ipilimumab 314 316 315 219 177 137 174 148 78 156 127 58 133 114 46 126 104 40 103 94 25 48 46 15 8 8 3 0 0 0 Database lock Nov 2015 ASCO 2016 25

Safety Summary Updated safety information with 9 additional months of follow-up were consistent with the initial report NIVO+IPI (N = 313) NIVO (N = 313) IPI (N = 311) Patients reporting event, % Any grade Grade 3-4 Any grade Grade 3-4 Any grade Grade 3-4 Treatment-related adverse event (AE) Treatment-related AE leading to discontinuation 95.8 56.5 84.0 19.8 85.9 27.0 38.7 30.7 10.5 7.3 15.4 13.5 Treatment-related death a 0 0.3 0.3 68.8% of patients who discontinued NIVO+IPI due to treatment-related AEs achieved a response a One reported in the NIVO group (neutropenia) and one in the IPI group (colon perforation) Database lock Nov 2015 ASCO 2016 26

Ongoing Clinical Trials NCT Phase Status Treatment(s) Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab Monotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With Advanced Melanoma (CheckMate 401) NCT02599402 III Recruiting Ipilimumab+nivolumab Phase IIIb/IV, Randomized, Double Blinded, Study of Nivolumab 3 mg/kg in Combination With Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg vs Nivolumab 1 mg/kg in Combination With Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in Subjects With Previously Untreated, Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma (CheckMate 511 ) NCT02714218 III Recruiting Ipilimumab+Nivolumab

Chemotherapy/Targeted Agents and Immuno-therapy Differ in Action and Outcome Response CT/target CTLA-4+PD-1 PD-1 CTLA-4 0 6 24 Time (months) Maio M. et al, unpublished

Prospectives New clinical settings New combinations New sequences

Primary Endpoint: Recurrence-free Survival (IRC)

Ongoing clinical trials BMS CA209238: A phase III, randomized, Double-blind study of adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab versus ipilimumab after complete resection of Stage IIIb/c or Stage IV melanoma subjects who are at high risk for recurrence EORTC 1325-KEYNOTE 054: Adjuvant immunotherapy with anti-pd-1 monoclonal antibody Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk Stage III melanoma: A randomized, doubleblind Phase 3 trial of the EORTC Melanoma Group

Effect in the CNS?

CTLA-4 blockade in MBM IPILIMUMAB Margolin K, Lancet Oncol 2012 N DCR OS (m) PSF (m) Asymptomatic 51 24% 7.0 1.5 Symptomatic 21 10% 4.0 1.2 IPILIMUMAB + FTM NIBIT M1 Di Giacomo AM, ESMO 2013 N DCR OS (m) PSF (m) Asymptomatic 20 50% 12.7 3.4 26-30 September 2014, Madrid, Spain esmo.org

NIBIT - M1 3-years survival update Secondary Endpoints Study population (N=86) Patients with MBM (N=20) Median OS, months (95% CI) 12.9 (7.1-18.7) 12.7 (2.7-22.7) 3-year survival rate, % (95% CI) 28.5 (20.1-41.3) 27.8 (17.2-60.6) Median ir-pfs, months (95% CI) 4.5 (3.1-5.9) 3.4 (2.3-4.5) Di Giacomo AM et al., Annals Oncol 2015

The NIBIT-M2 study design Screening/ Baseline Randomization Arm A Induction Phase Fotemustine: 100mg/m2 iv q1 week for 3 doses Manteinance Phase Fotemustine: 100mg/m2 q3 weeks from week 9 for 6 doses Arm B Induction Phase Fotemustine: 100mg/m2 iv q1 week for 3 doses and then from week 9 for 6 doses Ipilimumab: 10 mg/kg iv q3 weeks for 4 doses Manteinance Phase Ipilimumab: 10 mg/kg iv q12 weeks from week 24 Arm C Induction Phase Nivolumab 1mg/kg iv + ipilimumab 3mg/kg iv q3 for 4 doses Manteinance Phase Nivolumab 3mg/kg iv q2 weeks Follow-up phase Treatment until PD or excessive to toxicity or patient s refusal

Cancer Bio- Immunotherapy in Siena XIV NIBIT Meeting