Melanoma and introduction to immunotherapy Prof. Olivier Michielin, MS, MD-PhD Head of Personalized Analytical Oncology, Department of oncology, CHUV, Lausanne Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne
March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Targeted therapies Two simultaneous revolutions in stage IV melanoma Immune therapies
1 Chapman & al. NEJM 2011; 2 Hauschild & al. Lancet 2012; 3 Hodi & al. NEJM, 2010; 4 Flaherty, ASCO 2016; 5 Hodi, AACR 2016; 6 Postow, AACR 2016
2nd Generation I-O: • PD-1 blockade5 • Combined CTLA-4 + PD-16
2nd Generation TKI: • Dual BRAF + MEK inihibition4
BRAFi1,2 Early clinical benefit CTLA-4 blockade3 Late clinical benefit
Early and late clinical benefit
• 2nd generation strategies can both deliver early and late clinical benefits, challenging treatment plans 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Overview of stage IV outcome
1 Ugurel, EJC 2017
• Targeted therapies provide better early out o e…
• … ut i u o-oncology curves are crossing at around 14 months 1 … • … a d the differe e seems to increase with time
March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
What is the best endpoint to describe such a benefit?
1 Asierto, Lancet Oncology 2017
• mOS or mPFS are not adequate to describe the long term benefit • P. Ascierto and G. Long have proposed to use landmark PFS 1 • PFS is not dependent on subsequent lines • Another endpoint to drive stage IV development is CR rate…
March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Overview of therapeutic options in melanoma March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Overview of therapeutic options in melanoma Surgery Radio-therapy Chemo-therapy Immuno- therapy Targeted- therapy Stage I Standard No! No! ? ???
Stage II Standard No! No! Ongoing! ?? Stage III Standard Option? Cave! No! Standard Soon standard Stage IV Option for selected Option for palliation Option Standard Standard
Ad
juva
nt
Me
tasta
tic
Loco-regional Systemic
A multidisciplinary team is needed specially for early stage disease!
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Brief introduction to cancer immunotherapy March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Escaping the immune system is a hallmark of cancer!
Hanahan & Weinberg, Cell 2011 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
CD8+ TCR MHC-I
Tumor cell
Lymphocyte
Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte: Shortman, Brunner, Cerottini, J.Exp. Med. 1972
Demonstration of the activity of cytotoxic T lymphocytes
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Various types of tumor antigens CD8+ TCR
MHC-I 1) Differentiation 2) Overexpression 3) Cancer-Testis 4) Mutations (Neo-antigens) P53 Mutation
P53 Antigen in MHC-1
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab approval in NSCLC Nivolumab approval in RCC Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab approval in SCCHN
Nivolumab and Atezolizumab approval in Bladder cancer Nivolumab and pembrolizumab approval in Melanoma
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition successes across multiple tumors 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01
n=22
Rhabdoid tu
mor Ewing
sarcoma Thyroid AML
Medullobla
stoma
Carcinoid
Neuroblasto
ma Prosta
te CLL Low-g
rade glioma
Breas
t Multi
ple myelom
a Pancr
eas Kidne
y clear cell Kidne
y papill
ary cell
Ovarian
Glioblastom
a Cervic
al DLBCL
Head and n
eck Colore
ctal Esoph
ageal adeno
carcinoma Stoma
ch Bladd
er Lung A
D Lung S
Q Melan
oma
20 52 134 26 23 81 227 91 57 121 13 63 214 11 394 219 20 49 181 231 76 88 35 335 179 121 Soma
tic Mutation
Frequ
ency (/Mb)1
1. Lawrence, Nature. 2013 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Inflamed
Immune excluded
Immune desert
Immune phenotypes and immunotherapy
Adapted from • Chen & Mellman, Immunity, 2013 • Kim & al. Ann Oncol, 2016
1 Antigen release
2 Antigen presentation
3 Priming & activation 4 Trafficking
5 Tumor infiltration
6 Tumor recognition 7 Tumor killing
Tumor cells
No T cells
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Imperfect correlation between TIL and PD-L1 status • Tumors can also be classified on the basis of their TIL and PD-L1 status
• Type I: PD-L1 + TIL + • Type II: PD-L1 - TIL - • Type III: PD-L1 + TIL - • Type IV: PD-L1 - TIL +
• In melanoma, type I and II are the most prevalent • Type I: 38% • Type II: 41%
• Cave: such classifications provide a framework for further development but are oversimplifications of the underlying biology complexity Teng, Cancer Research 2015 III
I II
IV 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Immunotherapy: Checkpoints inhibitors
αCTLA-4
αPD-1
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Checkpoints act at different stages of the immune cycle
PD-1 or
PD-L1
CTLA-4
?
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
CTLA-4 blockade: ipilimumab (Yervoy) 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
B7
Canonical mode of action (MoA) of ipilimumab
Dendritic Cell
CTLA-4
✗ Inhibition
Cellule dendritique Dendritic Cell
Ipilimumab
Activation
B7 CD28 CTLA-4
Dendritic Cell
+ + + -
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
However, ipilimumab MoA is much more complex!
1 Krummel, J. Exp. Med 1995; 2 Romano, PNAS 2015; 3 Reviewed in Walker, Nat Rev Immunol 2011
2 Treg depletion by ADCC2
Treg CTLA4
MȻ FC-γ APC T cell
CTLA4 CD80 p-MHC TCR
1 Blocking CTLA4 inhibitory signal1
T cell CTLA4 CD80
APC IDO TRP 3 Blocking IDO expression by APC3
4 Blocking inhibitory cytokines3 T cell
CTLA4 CD80 APC
TGF-𝛽 T cell
5 Blocking CD80 capture3 T cell
Soluble CTLA4 APC
T cell CD28
CD80 T cell
APC 6 Blocking CTLA4 ligands capture3 CD80 No Signal II
Endo- cytosis 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Long term benefit of CTLA-4 blockade: pooled analysis1 • Long term benefit can be in part explained by the larger number of antigen recognized • Upon loss of an antigen by the tumors, growth can be controlled by the other ones • Ipilimumab has been shown to increase the antigenic repertoire
• Kvistborg & al. Science Transl Med 2014
? Checkpoint
1 Schadendorf, JCO 2015 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Tumor
antigen
Tumor cell MHC-I
CD8+
T cell
TCR
+
-
Oncogenic
event
2 PD-L1 expression resulting from oncogenic events
Tumor cell MHC-I
CD8+
T cell
TCR
STAT
IFN-γ
+
-
1 PD-L1 expression induced by IFN
Taube, Sci Transl Med 2012
Green, Blood 2010: 9p24.1 amplification leads to increased PD-L1 expression in Hodgkin
Dynamic PD-L1 expression
Constitutive PD-L1 expression
PD-1 / PD-L1 axis: deciphering PD-L1 expression mechanisms
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
PD-1 / PD-L1 pathway: biological interpretation Tumor cell Lymphocyte
+
-
= INF-γ
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab approval in NSCLC Nivolumab approval in RCC Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab approval in SCCHN
Nivolumab and Atezolizumab approval in Bladder cancer Nivolumab and pembrolizumab approval in Melanoma
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition successes across multiple tumors 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01
n=22
Rhabdoid tu
mor Ewing
sarcoma Thyroid AML
Medullobla
stoma
Carcinoid
Neuroblasto
ma Prosta
te CLL Low-g
rade glioma
Breas
t Multi
ple myelom
a Pancr
eas Kidne
y clear cell Kidne
y papill
ary cell
Ovarian
Glioblastom
a Cervic
al DLBCL
Head and n
eck Colore
ctal Esoph
ageal adeno
carcinoma Stoma
ch Bladd
er Lung A
D Lung S
Q Melan
oma
20 52 134 26 23 81 227 91 57 121 13 63 214 11 394 219 20 49 181 231 76 88 35 335 179 121 Soma
tic Mutation
Frequ
ency (/Mb)1
1. Lawrence, Nature. 2013 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Toxicity managment: detailed guidelines exist, e.g. ESMO
+
-
Haanen, Ann Oncol. 2017 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Clinical management of stage III melanoma March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Results from MSLT-2: no benefit to radical lymphadenectomy
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
MSLT-2 – Study design
Important: • The control arm is not follow-up, but active surveillance with 4 monthly ultrasounds!
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Results from MSLT-2: no benefit to radical lymphadenectomy
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Possible stage III
melanoma
management
algorithm
pT1b-T4b cN0 cM0 SLNB
Std. FU Adjuvant criteria? US FU Adjuvant
Relapse Adjuvant
Relapse CLND CLND
Negative Positive
Yes No
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Adjuvant treatments March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Risk / benefit ratio: number needed to treat
With 11% gain at 5 years, 89% of the population is exposed to treatment with no benefit and the number needed to treat is 9.1 compared to 35 for INF1
100%
0%
Overall Survival
Time
Adjuvant did not change outcome: patient death Adjuvant benefit: 11% @ 5y Adjuvant did not change outcome: patient is cured Control arm Adjuvant arm
1 Mocellin, Cochrane Review, 2013 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
EORTC 18071/CA184-029: adjuvant ipilimumab
Stratification factors:
• Stage (IIIA vs IIIB vs IIIC 1-3 positive lymph nodes vs IIIC ≥4 positive lymph nodes) • Regions (North America, European countries and Australia)
Enrollment Period: June 2008 – July 2011
Randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of
ipilimumab in the adjuvant setting for high-risk melanoma
Treatment up to a maximum 3 years, or until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal
N=475
N=476
Week 1 Week 12 Week 24
N=951
Q3W = every 3 weeks; Q12W = every 12 weeks.
High-risk, stage III, completely resected melanoma R INDUCTION Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg Q3W X4
MAINTENANCE Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg Q12W up to 3 years INDUCTION Placebo Q3W X4
MAINTENANCE Placebo Q12W up to 3 years
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Pa
tie
nts
a
liv
e (%
)
*Stratified by stage at randomization
Ipilimumab Placebo
Deaths/patients 162 / 475 214 / 476
Hazard ratio (95.1% CI)*
0.72 (0.58 - 0.88)
Log-rank P value* 0.001
EORTC 18071: Overall Survival
65%
54%
5-year difference
11%
CI = confidence interval; NR = not reached.
Years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
O N Number of patients at risk : 162 475 431 369 325 290 199 62 4
214 476 413 348 297 273 178 58 8
Ipilimumab
Placebo Eggermont, ESMO 2016
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Checkmate-238: adjuvant nivolumab vs. ipilimumab Patients with high-risk, completely resected stage IIIB/IIIC or stage IV melanoma
Enrollment period: March 30, 2015 to November 30, 2015
Follow-up Maximum treatment duration of 1 year
NIVO 3 mg/kg IV Q2W and IPI placebo IV Q3W for 4 doses then Q12W from week 24 IPI 10 mg/kg IV Q3W for 4 doses then Q12W from week 24 and NIVO placebo IV Q2W
1:1 n = 453
n = 453 Stratified by: 1) Disease stage: IIIB/C vs IV M1a-M1b vs IV M1c 2) PD-L1 status at a 5% cutoff in tumor cells
Weber, ESMO 2017 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
RF
S (
%)
Months
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 6 12 18 24 27 3 9 15 21
453 353 311 249 5 0 399 332 291 71 NIVO
453 314 252 184 2 0 364 269 225 56 IPI
Number of patients at risk
NIVO
IPI
NIVO IPI Events/patients 154/453 206/453 Median (95% CI) NR NR (16.6, NR) HR (97.56% CI) 0.65 (0.51, 0.83)
Log-rank P value <0.0001
66% 53%
71% 61%
Checkmate-238: primary endpoint – relapse free survival
Weber, ESMO 2017 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Adjuvant BRAFi + MEKi: COMBI-AD Key eligibility criteria • Completely resected, high-risk stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis > 1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma • BRAF V600E/K mutation • Surgi all free of disease eeks before randomization • ECOG performance status 0 or 1 • No prior radiotherapy or systemic therapy
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
Stratification • BRAF mutation status (V600E, V600K) • Disease stage (IIIA, IIIB, IIIC)
1:1 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID + trametinib 2 mg QD (n = 438) 2 matched placebos (n = 432)
Treatment: 12 monthsa Follow-up until end of study
• Primary endpoint: RFSd • Secondary endpoints: OS, DMFS, FFR, safety N = 870
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
438 413 405 392 382 373 355 336 325 299 282 276 263 257 233 202 194 147 116 110 66 52 42 19 7 2 0 432 387 322 280 263 243 219 203 198 185 178 175 168 166 158 141 138 106 87 86 50 33 30 9 3 0 0
Months From Randomization Dabrafenib plus trametinib Placebo
No. at Risk 0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Prop
ortio
n Aliv
e and
Rela
pse F
ree
1 y, 88%
2 y, 67% 3 y, 58% 1 y, 56%
2 y, 44% 3 y, 39%
NR, not reached.
Group Events, n (%) Median (95% CI), mo HR (95% CI) Dabrafenib+ trametinib 166 (38) NR (44.5-NR) 0.47 (0.39-0.58); P < .001 Placebo 248 (57) 16.6 (12.7-22.1)
P = .0000000000000153
Adjuvant BRAFi + MEKi: COMBI-AD
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Targeted therapies for stage IV melanoma March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Preclinical programs: • Allosteric inhibitors 1
Targeted therapies in stage IV melanoma: main trials RTK
RAS BRAF MEK ERK
Melanoma cell
COMBI-d7: BRAFV600 • D+T vs. dabrafenib • RR 67%, mPFS 9.3m • HR OS/PFS: 0.63/0.75
COMBI-v6: BRAFV600 • D+T vs. vemurafenib • RR 64%, mPFS 11.4m • HR OS/PFS: 0.69/0.56
1 Ostrem, Nature 2013; 2 McArthur, Lancet Oncol 2014; 3 Hauschild, Lancet 2012; 4 Flaherty, NEJM 2012; 5 Dummer, Lancet Oncol 2017; 6 Robert NEJM 2015; 7 Long, Lancet 2015; 8 Larkin NEJM 2014; 9 Dummer, EADO 2015; 10 Wong, Molecular Cancer 2014; NA: Not Available
Co-BRIM8: BRAFV600 • V + cobi vs. V • RR 68%, mPFS 9.9m • HR OS/PFS: 0.51/0.65 COLOMBUS9: BRAFV600 • enco + bini / enco / V • RR 63%, mPFS 14.9 • HR OS/PFS: NA/0.54
Preclinical & clinical: • Allosteric and ATP competitors 10 • GDC-0994 in phase I
BREAK-33: BRAFV600 • dabrafenib vs. DTIC • RR 47%, mPFS 5.1m • HR OS/PFS: 0.61/0.30
BRIM-32: BRAFV600 • vemurafenib vs. DTIC • RR 57%, mPFS 6.9m • HR OS/PFS: 0.70/0.38 Metric4: BRAFV600 • trametinib vs DTIC • RR 22%, mPFS 4.8m • HR OS/PFS: 0.54/0.45
NEMO5: NRASmut • binimetinib (MEK162) • RR 15%, mPFS 2.8m • HR OS/PFS: 1.0 / 0.62
• Dabrafenib • Vemurafenib • … • Trametinib • Cobimetinib • …
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
COMBI-d: study design
Presented by Keith Flaherty, ASCO 2016
N = 947 screened
Primary Endpoint: investigator-assessed PFS
Secondary Endpoints: OS, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, safety
N = 423
• BRAF V600E/K • Unresectable stage IIIC/IV • Treatment naive • ECOG PS 0/1 • No brain metastases, unless:
Treated Sta le eeks Stratification
• BRAF-mutant (V600E vs K) • LDH (> ULN vs ULN)
Dabrafenib + trametinib 150 mg BID + 2 mg QD n = 211 Dabrafenib + placebo 150 mg BID + placebo QD n = 212
Pre-planned interim OS [95 events]
Primary Analysis (PFS) [213 events] Aug 2013 Final Analysis (OS) [222 deaths] Jan 2015
BID, twice daily; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; QD, once daily; ULN, upper limit of normal. 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
COMBI-d: 3 year survival estimates Overall Survival
212 175 138 104 84 69 57 7 0
211 187 143 111 96 86 76 13 0
Dabrafenib + Trametinib (n = 211)
Dabrafenib + Placebo (n = 212)b
3-y OS, 44%
3-y OS, 32%
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 6 12 30 18
Months From Randomization
OS
Pro
ba
bil
ity
D+Pbo
D+T
Number at risk
2-y OS, 52%
2-y OS, 43%
24 36 42 48
Progression-Free Survival
212 110 67 41 29 11 7 1 0
211 137 84 69 54 45 31 0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
Months From Randomization
PF
S P
rob
ab
ilit
y
D+Pbo
D+T
Number at risk
6 12 30 18 24 36 42 48
3-y PFS, 22%
3-y PFS, 12%
2-y PFS, 30%
2-y PFS, 16%
Dabrafenib + Trametinib (n = 211)
Dabrafenib + Placebo (n = 212)
58% of D+T patients alive at
3 years still on D+T
Presented By Keith Flaherty at 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Baseline Factors Influencing OS in Combi-d, Combi-v and Ph-II • Regression tree analysis based on:
• BMI • Age • LDH (N, > 1- ULN, ULN) • Sex • ECOG • Visceral disease • Number of sites • Prior adjuvant immunotherapy
• 5 prognostic subgroups with very large OS differences
N=617
Adapted from: GV. Long, SMR 2015, JCO 2016 K. Flaherty, ASCO 2016
N=398 1Y=85% 2Y=75% 3Y=57% N=219 1Y=54% 2Y=25% 3Y=7%
Normal LDH LDH ULN
N=149 1Y=60% 2Y=33% 3Y=9% N=70 1Y=40% 2Y=7% 3Y=7%
LDH 2x ULN LDH > 1- ULN
N=237 1Y=90% 2Y=75% 3Y=70% N=161 1Y=76% 2Y=55% 3Y=38%
Sites Sites < 3
N=93 1Y=71% 2Y=43% 3Y=NE N=56 1Y=42% 2Y=19% 3Y=16%
ECOG ECOG = 1
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Counteracting BRAF/MEKi resistance mechanisms March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Strategies to overcome BRAFi + MEKi resistance • Combination based on molecular escape
• E.g: LOGIC-2 trial
Combo Rational 3rd TKI PD Combo
Combo Combo Combo
Combo PD Combo
• Sequential regimens • Ongoing
• Treatment beyond PD • +/- local therapy
• Engaging the immune system • Synergistic with combo? Combo Combo
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Example of rational combination trial: LOGIC-2 • Strategies for rational combination at PD based on molecular escapes are now emerging • An example is the LOGIC-2 trial: NCT02159066
• Primary endpoint: ORR • Se o dar e dpoi ts: PFS, OS, …
• Recruitment has been completed • First data expected for 12.2017!
Binimetinib (MEK) PD Encorafenib (BRAF) 140 stage IV BRAFV600 patients
LEE011 BGJ398 BKM120 INC280 CDK4/6 inhibitor or FGFR inhibitor or PI3K inhibitor or MET inhibitor or
Mandatory baseline and PD biopsies
Binimetinib (MEK) Encorafenib (BRAF)
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Adding CDK4i to the BRAFi and MEKi backbone? • Results from a phase I/II trial testing the triple combination of BRAF, MEK and CDK4 presented at ASCO1 • 42 patient in the phase II, BRAFi naïve were given
• encorafenib 200 mg (BRAF) • binimetinib 45 mg (MEK) • ribociclib 600 mg (CDK4) (3w out of 4)
• ORR was 52% compared to 63% in combo arm of COLOMBUS • mPFS 9.2 m compared to 14.9 m in combo arm of COLOMBUS • Explanation?
• Lower dosage of BRAF and / or MEK? • High discontinuation rate? • PK/PD with triple combination? 1Abstract 9518, Ascierto, ASCO 2017, Discussed by G. McArthur
Need more TR correlative data 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Strategies to overcome BRAFi + MEKi resistance • Combination based on molecular escape
• E.g: LOGIC-2 trial
Combo Rational 3rd TKI PD Combo
Combo Combo Combo
Combo PD Combo
• Sequential regimens • Ongoing
• Treatment beyond PD • +/- local therapy
• Engaging the immune system • Synergistic with combo? Combo Combo
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Rechallenge: prospective trial!
Schreuer, Lancet Oncol 2017
• BRAF + MEKi rechallenge, prospective phase II trial • Patients having failed BRAFi or BRAF + MEKi with a drug free interval of 3+ months • RR 32% (8/25) • Baseline BRAF v600Mut cfDNA was not associated with clinical benefit, but reponders had a statistically more important cfDNA decline at W2 • Could resistance mechanisms predict clinical benefits in rechallenge?
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Immuno-therapies for stage IV melanoma March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Therapeutic opportunities: towards a rational selection of PD-1 based combos? March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
A large number of checkpoints are targeted in clinical trials T cell
TCR
CTLA-4 PD-1 TIM-3 BTLA
VISTA LAG-3
CD28 OX40 GITR
CD137 HVEM CD27
Inhibitory Checkpoints Activating Checkpoints
Blocking
MABs
Agonistic
MABs
Adapted from Mellman, Nature 2011
Combinatorial issue! • 12*11=132 possible doublets ☞ We need to guide trial development!
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Towards a rational selection of PD-1 based combo? • Either baseline or on treatment biopsies can help guide decision • All combos are being tested within clinical trials • Complex biomarker will help optimal patient selection
PD-L positi it % αPD-1 alone? PD-L1 positivity < 1% αPD- + αCTLA-4? High content in TAM αPD- + αCSF R? High IDO expression αPD-1 + IDOi? T cell exhaustion, LAG3+? αPD- + αLAG ? T cell exhaustion, TIM3+? αPD- + αTIM ?
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Selected PD-1-based checkpoint combos tested for melanoma Indication, clinical phase Compound Checkpoint target PD-1 inhibitor ClinicalTrial.gov ID Melanoma, P I-II Ipilimumab CTLA-4 Inhibitory Inhibitory Inhibitory
Pembrolizumab NCT02089685 Solid tumors, P I-II BMS-986218 CTLA-4 Nivolumab NCT03110107 Solid tumors, P I-II BMS-986016 LAG-3 Nivolumab NCT01968109 Solid tumors, P I-II LAG525 LAG-3 PDR001 NCT02460224 Solid tumors, P I-II Lirilumab KIR Nivolumab NCT01714739 Solid tumors, P I-II BMS-986207 TIGIT Nivolumab NCT02913313 Solid tumors, P I MK-7684-001 TIGIT Pembrolizumab NCT02964013 Solid tumors, P I Enoblituzumab B7-H3 Pembrolizumab NCT02475213 Melanoma, P III Epacadostat IDO Pembrolizumab NCT02752074 Solid tumors, P I-II BMS-986205 IDO Nivolumab NCT02658890 Solid tumors, P I-II Urelumab CD137 (4-1BB) Activating
Nivolumab NCT02253992 Solid tumors, P I-II BMS-986156 GITR Nivolumab NCT02598960 Solid tumors, P I-II BMS-986178 OX40 Nivolumab NCT02737475 Solid tumors, P I-II Varlilumab CD27 Nivolumab NCT02335918 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Rational combination or rational sequencing? Possible strategies for I-O sequences or combos
2nd I-O agent PD-1 PD 1 Sequencing
PD-1 PD-1 PD 2nd I-O agent 2 Combo at relapse
PD-1 2nd I-O agent 3 Combo at start
… Depending on the type of resistance mechanism, one strategy or the other might be more appropriate to obtain maximal global PFS. Biomarkers are required to guide such strategies.
Resistance mechanism
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Rational selection of PD-1 based combo at start PD-1 + CTLA-4 inhibitor data: Checkmate-067 March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Unresectable or
Metatastic Melanoma
• Previously untreated
• 945 patients
CA209-067: Study Design CheckMate 067: Study Design
Treat until progression or unacceptable
toxicity
NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI-matched placebo
NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses then NIVO
3 mg/kg Q2W
IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses +
NIVO-matched placebo
Randomize
1:1:1
Stratify by:
• BRAF status
• AJCC M stage
• Tumor PD-L1 expression <5% vs ≥5%*
N=314
N=316
N=315
Randomized, double-blind, phase III study to compare NIVO+IPI or NIVO alone to IPI alone*
*The study was not powered for a comparison between NIVO and NIVO+IPI
Database lock: Sept 13, 2016 (median follow-up ~30 months in both NIVO-containing arms)
55 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Improved survival for the PD-1 arms compared to CTLA-4
Wolchok, NEJM 2017
PD-1 or PD-1 + CTLA-4 are both valid first lines for stage IV melanoma
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Imperfect current biomarkers for patient selection1 • No good predictive biomarkers have been identified that allow to strongly separate the patient populations
• PD-L1 and BRAF allow to select population with higher benefit, but the biomarker negative population still derives benefit • No clear PD-L1 cutoff • 1% (44% of pts) as basis for patient discussion?
1Wolchok, NEJM 2017 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Imperfect current biomarkers for patient selection1 • No good predictive biomarkers have been identified that allow to strongly separate the patient populations
• PD-L1 and BRAF allow to select population with higher benefit, but the biomarker negative population still derives benefit
False positive rate True p
ositive rate
ROC curves confirm the poor performance of PD-L1 to guide patient selection: Fig. S4
1Wolchok, NEJM 2017 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Towards complex, multidimensional predictive biomarkers March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Searching for better biomarkers for stage IV patient selection ?
Wolchok, NEJM 2017 17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Checkmate-038 prospective biomarker study1
1Riaz, Cell 2017 (in print)
• 68 advanced melanoma patients • Multidimensional biomarker analysis at baseline and on treatment reveals molecular actions of anti-PD-1 therapy a) Anti-PD-1 therapy induces changes in the mutational burden of tumors b) Distinct changes in gene expression programs associate with clinical response c) Shifts in the TCR repertoire occur following immune checkpoint blockade • This study is one example of the level of information that need to be integrated for complex biomarker research • Many more to come!
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Conclusion and outlook March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Conclusion: modern treatment of melanoma, a whole new world! • In less than 10 years, the treatment of melanoma has been completely rewritten • Two strategies have provided unprecedented overall survival benefits
• Targeted and immuno-therapies • Our challenge for the years to come is
• to optimally combine and/or sequence them • to define predictive biomarkers for precise patient selection and maximal benefit, i.e. a cure!
BRAFi1,2 Early clinical benefit
CTLA-4 blockade3 Late clinical benefit
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology
Possible treatment algorithm for stage IV melanoma 1st Line
2nd Line
3rd Line
BRAF WT BRAF Mutated NRAS Mutated
Trial
Trial
Trial
PD-1
CTLA-4
Chemo
PD-1/ CLTA-4
BRAFi/ MEKi
Chemo
BRAFi/ MEKi
PD-1/ CLTA-4
Chemo
PD-1/ CLTA-4
MEKi
Chemo
PD-1
BRAFi/ MEKi CTLA-4 Chemo
PD-1
CTLA-4 MEKi
Chemo
PD-1/ CLTA-4
Chemo I-O Re-challenge
? ? ? ?
March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology 17th ESO-ESMO M
asterclass in Clinical O
ncology
Thank you for your attention! March 25th 2018, Berlin, Germany ESMO/ESO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology
17th ESO-ESMO Masterclass in
Clinical Oncology