Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma

被引:0
作者
Christian U. Blank
Elisa A. Rozeman
Lorenzo F. Fanchi
Karolina Sikorska
Bart van de Wiel
Pia Kvistborg
Oscar Krijgsman
Marlous van den Braber
Daisy Philips
Annegien Broeks
Johannes V. van Thienen
Henk A. Mallo
Sandra Adriaansz
Sylvia ter Meulen
Loes M. Pronk
Lindsay G. Grijpink-Ongering
Annemarie Bruining
Rachel M. Gittelman
Sarah Warren
Harm van Tinteren
Daniel S. Peeper
John B. A. G. Haanen
Alexander C. J. van Akkooi
Ton N. Schumacher
机构
[1] Netherlands Cancer Institute,Medical Oncology Department
[2] Netherlands Cancer Institute,Division of Molecular Oncology & Immunology
[3] Netherlands Cancer Institute,Department of Biometrics
[4] Netherlands Cancer Institute,Department of Pathology
[5] Netherlands Cancer Institute,Surgical Oncology Department
[6] Netherlands Cancer Institute,Department of Radiology
[7] Adaptive Biotechnologies,undefined
[8] NanoString Technologies,undefined
[9] Inc.,undefined
来源
Nature Medicine | 2018年 / 24卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Adjuvant ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) both improve relapse-free survival of stage III melanoma patients1,2. In stage IV disease, the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab is superior to ipilimumab alone and also appears to be more effective than nivolumab monotherapy3. Preclinical work suggests that neoadjuvant application of checkpoint inhibitors may be superior to adjuvant therapy4. To address this question and to test feasibility, 20 patients with palpable stage III melanoma were 1:1 randomized to receive ipilimumab 3 mg kg−1 and nivolumab 1 mg kg−1, as either four courses after surgery (adjuvant arm) or two courses before surgery and two courses postsurgery (neoadjuvant arm). Neoadjuvant therapy was feasible, with all patients undergoing surgery at the preplanned time point. However in both arms, 9/10 patients experienced one or more grade 3/4 adverse events. Pathological responses were achieved in 7/9 (78%) patients treated in the neoadjuvant arm. None of these patients have relapsed so far (median follow-up, 25.6 months). We found that neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab expand more tumor-resident T cell clones than adjuvant application. While neoadjuvant therapy appears promising, with the current regimen it induced high toxicity rates; therefore, it needs further investigation to preserve efficacy but reduce toxicity.
引用
收藏
页码:1655 / 1661
页数:6
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
Eggermont AM(2016)Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy N. Engl. J. Med. 375 1845-1185
[2]  
Weber J(2017)Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma N. Engl. J. Med. 377 1824-1835
[3]  
Wolchok JD(2017)Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma N. Engl. J. Med. 377 1345-1356
[4]  
Liu J(2016)Improved efficacy of neoadjuvant compared to adjuvant immunotherapy to eradicate metastatic disease Cancer Discov. 6 1382-1399
[5]  
Balch CM(2009)Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification J. Clin. Oncol. 27 6199-6206
[6]  
Balch CM(2001)Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system J. Clin. Oncol. 19 3622-3634
[7]  
Burmeister BH(2012)Adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation alone for patients at risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for melanoma: a randomised trial Lancet Oncol. 13 589-597
[8]  
Eggermont AM(2015)Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3trial Lancet Oncol. 16 522-530
[9]  
Long GV(2017)Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma N. Engl. J. Med. 377 1813-1823
[10]  
Larkin J(2015)Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma N. Engl. J. Med. 373 1270-1271