A Phase I Dose Escalation Study of the Safety,Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Ipilimumab in Chinese Patients with Select Advanced Solid Tumors

Lessons Learned

• The overall safety profiles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg administered every 3 weeks, were consistent between Chinese patients with solid tumors in the current study and patients from previous U.S. ipilimumab monotherapy studies. No new safety signals were identified.
• The mean systemic exposures to ipilimumab (assessed by first dose area under the curve during the dosing interval and maximum serum concentration) were numerically lower in the Chinese patient population than in U.S. patients for both 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg doses; however, the range of serum concentrations in the Chinese and U.S. populations overlapped (3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg), suggesting that ipilimumab pharmacokinetics was ethnically insensitive in this study.

BackgroundThis phase I, open‐label study assessed ipilimumab safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity, and antitumor activity in Chinese patients with unresectable, metastatic, recurrent malignant melanoma (MM) or nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).MethodsOf 39 patients enrolled, 25 received ipilimumab (11 patients received 3 mg/kg, and 14 patients received 10 mg/kg). Reasons for not receiving treatment were withdrawal of consent (3 patients), no longer meeting the criteria (10 patients), and one recorded as “other.” During the induction phase, patients received ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, i.v.), on day 1 of a 3‐week cycle, to a maximum of four doses or progressive disease (PD). During the maintenance phase at week 24, patients received ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, i.v.) on day 1 of a 12‐week cycle, to a maximum of 3 years or PD. Considering the co‐primary safety and PK endpoints, the successive dosing required nine patients with two or fewer dose‐limiting toxicities during the 42‐day observation period to proceed with a new cohort of nine patients at 10 mg/kg.ResultsIpilimumab safety and PK profiles were similar in Chinese and predominantly White populations. Ipilimumab was well tolerated. Most adverse events (AEs) were grades 1–2 and experienced by 11 patients treated with 3 mg/kg and 14 patients treated with 10 mg/kg. There were no new safety concerns. Incidence of anti‐ipilimumab antibodies was low (1 of 10 in the 3 mg/kg patients and 2 of 13 in the 10 mg/kg patients) and without safety implications. In the 3 mg/kg group, 8 of 11 patients had PD. In the 10 mg/kg group (all NPC, 0 MM patients), 11 of 14 patients had PD. Three patients had stable disease (one at 3 mg/kg and two at 10 mg/kg).ConclusionIpilimumab was well tolerated in Chinese patients, showing similar safety and PK to previous studies in predominantly White populations.     

Managing cardiotoxicity associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Immuno-oncology is a fast evolving field of cancer therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are clearly a breakthrough in this field. Cardiotoxicity with conventional anti-cancer therapies has been well studied in the past and clear guidelines for management of these side effects are available in the literature. However, cardiotoxicity with novel agents such as ICIs has been fairly under-reported and/or underestimated and we are yet to formulate clear guidelines for management of these rare side effects. In the last few years, there has been an overall increase in the number of cases of cardiotoxicity related to ICIs. In this literature review, we describe the mechanism of action of the most widely used ICIs and their related cardiotoxicities. The increase in number of case reports about the potential of cardiotoxicities with these novel agents clearly indicates the need for a new insight into the field of cardio-immuno-oncology.     

Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry: Quality assurance in the care of patients with metastatic melanoma in the Netherlands

BackgroundIn recent years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically due to the development of immune checkpoint and mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase inhibitors. A population-based registry, the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), was set up in July 2013 to assure the safety and quality of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This article describes the design and objectives of the DMTR and presents some results of the first 2 years of registration.MethodsThe DMTR documents detailed information on all Dutch patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma. This includes tumour and patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, quality of life, healthcare utilisation, informal care and productivity losses. These data are used for clinical auditing, increasing the transparency of melanoma care, providing insights into real-world cost-effectiveness and creating a platform for research.ResultsWithin 1 year, all melanoma centres were participating in the DMTR. The quality performance indicators demonstrated that the BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab have been safely introduced in the Netherlands with toxicity rates that were consistent with the phase III trials conducted. The median overall survival of patients treated with systemic therapy was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1–11.1) in the first registration year and 12.7 months (95% CI 11.6–13.7) in the second year.ConclusionThe DMTR is the first comprehensive multipurpose nationwide registry and its collaboration with all stakeholders involved in melanoma care reflects an integrative view of cancer management. In future, the DMTR will provide insights into challenging questions regarding the definition of possible subsets of patients who benefit most from the new drugs.     

CTLA‐4 (CD152) enhances the Tc17 differentiation program

Although CD8⁺ T cells that produce IL‐17 (Tc17 cells) have been linked to host defense, Tc17 cells show reduced cytotoxic activity, which is the characteristic function of CD8⁺ T cells. Here, we show that CTLA‐4 enhances the frequency of IL‐17 in CD8⁺ T cells, indicating that CTLA‐4 (CD152) specifically promotes Tc17 differentiation. Simultaneous stimulation of CTLA‐4^+/+ and CTLA‐4^?/? T cells in cocultures and agonistic CTLA‐4 stimulation unambiguously revealed a cell‐intrinsic mechanism for IL‐17 control by CTLA‐4. The quality of CTLA‐4‐induced Tc17 cells was tested in vivo, utilizing infection with the facultative intracellular bacterium Listeria monocytogenes (LM). Unlike CTLA‐4^+/+ Tc17 cells, CTLA‐4^?/? were nearly as efficient as Tc1 CTLA‐4^+/+ cells in LM clearance. Additionally, adoptively transferred CTLA‐4^?/? Tc17 cells expressed granzyme B after rechallenge, and produced Tc1 cytokines such as IFN‐γ and TNF‐α, which strongly correlate with bacterial clearance. CTLA‐4^+/+ Tc17 cells demonstrated a high‐quality Tc17 differentiation program ex vivo, which was also evident in isolated IL‐17‐secreting Tc17 cells, with CTLA‐4‐mediated enhanced upregulation of Tc17‐related molecules such as IL‐17A, RORγt, and IRF‐4. Our results show that CTLA‐4 promotes Tc17 differentiation that results in robust Tc17 responses. Its inactivation might therefore represent a central therapeutic target to enhance clearance of infection.     

Colitis associated with biological agents

In the past, there has been considerable focus on a host of drugs and chemicals that may produce colonic toxicity. Now, a variety of new biological monoclonal antibody agents, usually administered by infusion, have appeared in the clinical realm over the last decade or so to treat different chronic inflammatory or malignant disorders.For some of these agents, adverse effects have been documented, including apparently new forms of immune-mediated inflammatory bowel disease. In some, only limited symptoms have been recorded, but in others, severe colitis with serious complications, such as bowel perforation has been recorded. In others, adverse effects may have a direct vascular or ischemic basis, while other intestinal effects may be related to a superimposed infection. Some new onset cases of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease may also be attributed to the same agents used to treat these diseases, or be responsible for disease exacerbation. Dramatic and well documented side effects have been observed with ipilimumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody developed to reduce and overcome cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4, a key negative feedback regulator of the T-cell anti-tumor response. This agent has frequently been used in the treatment of different malignancies, notably, malignant melanoma. Side effects with this agent occur in up to 40% and these are believed to be largely immune-mediated. One of these is a form of enterocolitis that may be severe, and occasionally, fatal. Other agents include rituximab (an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody), bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody against the vascular endothelial growth factor) and anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, including infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept.     

Traitement systémique des métastases cérébrales de mélanome

Melanomas have a high rate of brain metastases. Both the functional prognosis and the overall survival are poor in these patients. Until now, surgery and radiotherapy represented the two main modalities of treatment. Nevertheless, due to the improvement in the management of the extracerebral melanoma, the systemic treatment may be an option in patients with brain metastases. Immunotherapy with anti-CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) – ipilimumab – or BRAF (serine/threonine-protein kinase B-raf) inhibitors – vemurafenib, dabrafenib – has shown efficacy in the management of brain metastases in a- or pauci-symptomatic patients. Studies are ongoing with anti-PD1 (programmed cell death 1) and combinations of targeted therapies associating anti-RAF (raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase) and anti-MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase).     

Melanoma en pacientes receptores de un trasplante de órgano sólido

In this review, we analyze the 3 clinical scenarios related to the development of melanoma in solid organ transplant recipients: melanoma in patients with a history of the tumor prior to a transplant, de novo melanoma following a transplant, and melanoma of donor origin. The main factors to consider in organ-transplant candidates with a history of melanoma are tumor stage, presence or absence of residual disease, and time from diagnosis to transplantation. Solid organ transplant recipients have a greater risk of melanoma than immunocompetent individuals. Mortality is also higher in this population, especially in patients with advanced melanoma, as treatment is especially challenging. Clinical history and physical examination provide the most useful information for preventing donor-to-recipient transmission of melanoma. Donor-derived melanoma has a very poor prognosis.     

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort

IntroductionNivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort.MethodsPatients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review.ResultsOverall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8–7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1–8.3). Twenty-four–month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively.ConclusionsWhereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy.