Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Document Type
- Journal article (6)
Language
- English (6)
Keywords
- B7-H1 Antigen (1)
- CTLA-4 Antigen (1)
- Clinical trials (1)
- Drug Therapy, Combination (1)
- Immune-related adverse event (1)
- Ipilimumab (1)
- Merkel cell carcinoma (1)
- Minimal change disease (1)
- Nivolumab (1)
- PD-1 (1)
Institute
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
Systemic treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma: review of literature and future perspectives
(2013)
Up to 50% of patients with uveal melanoma develop metastatic disease with poor prognosis. Regional, mainly liver-directed, therapies may induce limited tumor responses but do not improve overall survival. Response rates of metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) to systemic chemotherapy are poor. Insights into the molecular biology of MUM recently led to investigation of new drugs. In this study, to compare response rates of systemic treatment for MUM we searched Pubmed/Web of Knowledge databases and ASCO website (1980–2013) for “metastatic/uveal/melanoma” and “melanoma/eye.” Forty studies (one case series, three phase I, five pilot, 22 nonrandomized, and two randomized phase II, one randomized phase III study, data of three expanded access programs, three retrospective studies) with 841 evaluable patients were included in the numeric outcome analysis. Complete or partial remissions were observed in 39/841 patients (overall response rate [ORR] 4.6%; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 3.3–6.3%), no responses were observed in 22/40 studies. Progression-free survival ranged from 1.8 to 7.2, median overall survival from 5.2 to 19.0 months as reported in 21/40 and 26/40 studies, respectively. Best responses were seen for chemoimmunotherapy (ORR 10.3%; 95% CI 4.8–18.7%) though mainly in first-line patients. Immunotherapy with ipilimumab, antiangiogenetic approaches, and kinase inhibitors have not yet proven to be superior to chemotherapy. MEK inhibitors are currently investigated in a phase II trial with promising preliminary data. Despite new insights into genetic and molecular background of MUM, satisfying systemic treatment approaches are currently lacking. Study results of innovative treatment strategies are urgently awaited.
Background
Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy with poor prognosis. In Europe, approved systemic therapies are limited to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab. For avelumab-refractory patients, efficient and safe treatment options are lacking.
Methods
At three different sites in Germany, clinical and molecular data of patients with metastatic MCC being refractory to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab and who were later on treated with combined IPI/NIVO were retrospectively collected and evaluated.
Results
Five patients treated at three different academic sites in Germany were enrolled. Three out of five patients investigated for this report responded to combined IPI/NIVO according to RECIST 1.1. Combined immunotherapy was well tolerated without any grade II or III immune-related adverse events. Two out of three responders to IPI/NIVO received platinum-based chemotherapy in between avelumab and combined immunotherapy.
Conclusion
In this small retrospective study, we observed a high response rate and durable responses to subsequent combined immunotherapy with IPI/NIVO in avelumab-refractory metastatic MCC patients. In conclusion, our data suggest a promising activity of second- or third-line PD-1- plus CTLA-4-blockade in patients with anti-PD-L1-refractory MCC.
Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare, highly aggressive skin cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation. Immune checkpoint inhibition has significantly improved treatment outcomes in metastatic disease with response rates to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibition of up to 62%. However, primary and secondary resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition remains a so far unsolved clinical challenge since effective and safe treatment options for these patients are lacking.Fourteen patients with advanced (non-resectable stage III or stage IV, Union international contre le cancer 2017) Merkel cell carcinoma with primary resistance to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab receiving subsequent therapy (second or later line) with ipilimumab plus nivolumab (IPI/NIVO) were identified in the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG. Five of these 14 patients were reported previously and were included in this analysis with additional follow-up. Overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events were analyzed.All 14 patients received avelumab as first-line treatment. Thereof, 12 patients had shown primary resistance with progressive disease in the first tumor assessment, while two patients had initially experienced a short-lived stabilization (stable disease). Six patients had at least one systemic treatment in between avelumab and IPI/NIVO. In total, 7 patients responded to IPI/NIVO (overall response rate 50%), and response was ongoing in 4 responders at last follow-up. After a median follow-up of 18.85 months, median PFS was 5.07 months (95% CI 2.43—not available (NA)), and median OS was not reached. PFS rates at 12 months and 24 months were 42.9% and 26.8 %, respectively. The OS rate at 36 months was 64.3%. Only 3 (21%) patients did not receive all 4 cycles of IPI/NIVO due to immune-related adverse events.In this multicenter evaluation, we observed high response rates, a durable benefit and promising OS rates after treatment with later-line combined IPI/NIVO. In conclusion, our patient cohort supports our prior findings with an encouraging activity of second-line or later-line IPI/NIVO in patients with anti-PD-L1-refractory Merkel cell carcinoma.
Background: Eosinophils appear to contribute to the efficacy of immunotherapy and their frequency was suggested as a predictive biomarker. Whether this observation could be transferred to patients treated with targeted therapy remains unknown. Methods: Blood and serum samples of healthy controls and 216 patients with advanced melanoma were prospectively and retrospectively collected. Freshly isolated eosinophils were phenotypically characterized by flow cytometry and co-cultured in vitro with melanoma cells to assess cytotoxicity. Soluble serum markers and peripheral blood counts were used for correlative studies. Results: Eosinophil-mediated cytotoxicity towards melanoma cells, as well as phenotypic characteristics, were similar when comparing healthy donors and patients. However, high relative pre-treatment eosinophil counts were significantly associated with response to MAPKi (p = 0.013). Eosinophil-mediated cytotoxicity towards melanoma cells is dose-dependent and requires proximity of eosinophils and their target in vitro. Treatment with targeted therapy in the presence of eosinophils results in an additive tumoricidal effect. Additionally, melanoma cells affected eosinophil phenotype upon co-culture. Conclusion: High pre-treatment eosinophil counts in advanced melanoma patients were associated with a significantly improved response to MAPKi. Functionally, eosinophils show potent cytotoxicity towards melanoma cells, which can be reinforced by MAPKi. Further studies are needed to unravel the molecular mechanisms of our observations.
Background: Rhabdoid melanoma is a rare variant of malignant melanoma with characteristic cytomorphologic features. Due to the potential loss of conventional melanocytic markers, histopathologic diagnosis is often challenging. We hypothesize that immunostaining for PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) might have the potential to uncover the melanocytic origin of these dedifferentiated tumors. Methods: Four cases of rhabdoid primary melanomas were assessed by immunohistochemistry for expression of PRAME and conventional melanocytic markers. Immunohistochemical expression patterns were analyzed in the rhabdoid primaries and, if available, associated metastases. Results: All four cases of rhabdoid primary melanomas showed a strong nuclear positivity for PRAME, while the expression of conventional melanocytic markers S100, MART-1, SOX-10 and HMB-45 was variable between the analyzed cases. Conclusions: In summary, we report four cases of rhabdoid primary melanoma with high to intermediate expression of PRAME despite the partial and variable loss of other melanocytic markers. Hence, PRAME might facilitate the recognition of this highly aggressive entity to avoid misdiagnosis due to histopathologic pitfalls.
Background
High response rates of metastatic melanoma have been reported upon immune checkpoint inhibition by PD-1 blockade alone or in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors. However, the majority of patients with a primary resistance to anti-PD-1 monotherapy is also refractory to a subsequent combined checkpoint inhibition. In BRAF wildtype patients with a primary resistance to PD-1 inhibitors, therapeutic options are therefore limited and immune-related adverse events (irAE) have to be taken into consideration when discussing a subsequent immunotherapy.
Case presentation
We report the case of a 68-year-old male patient with metastatic melanoma who experienced an acute renal failure with nephrotic syndrome due to a minimal change disease developing after a single dose of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. A kidney biopsy revealed a podocytopathy without signs of interstitial nephritis. Renal function recovered to almost normal creatinine and total urine protein levels upon treatment with oral steroids and diuretics. Unfortunately, a disease progression (PD, RECIST 1.1) was observed in a CT scan after resolution of the irAE. In a grand round, re-exposure to a PD-1-containing regime was recommended. Consensually, a combined immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab was initiated. Nephrotoxicity was tolerable during combined immunotherapy and a CT scan of chest and abdomen showed a deep partial remission (RECIST 1.1) after three doses of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) and nivolumab (1 mg/kg).
Conclusion
This case illustrates that a fulminant response to combined checkpoint inhibition is possible after progression after anti-PD-1 monotherapy and a severe irAE.